Prenuptial Agreement: A Means to Greater Financial Security In or Out of Marriage

http://www.karenalexanderlegal.com/One very important and useful agreement marrying couples enter into nowadays is the prenuptial or premarital agreement, a contract which clearly suggests how a couples’ properties and assets will have to be distributed in the event of divorce, legal separation, dissolution or annulment of marriage or death. Traditionally, prenuptials have always been thought to add when one or both parties are already very wealthy when entering the marriage, but this is changing to just be a standard clause. Though not intended to take away the romance in a marriage, a premarital agreement is, in fact, a very wise financial move as it will shield the divorcing couple’s financial future and not leave them suing one another for what one believes ought to be his or hers.

Though not originally an American practice, the need to enter into the agreement was introduced through the Married Women’s Property Act in 1848. Prior to the Act, a woman who was married was recognized only as her husband’s extension; thus, at the moment of marriage, she lost all her rights to possess, sell or transfer any property, earn income or receive educational training (unless permitted by her husband). And in the event that she would be allowed to work, she was obliged to surrender whatever she earned to her husband. All these were due to the legal rule known as coverture, the law that required a woman who entered into marriage to surrender her identity and rights to her husband. Due to this policy, any woman, though wealthy, faced the chance of losing everything she owned to her husband.

With the introduction of the prenuptial agreement divorcing couples justly take back what was rightfully theirs from the very start and get the chance to divide whatever profit they had within the marriage faster and without the need to file a case against each other. Other great benefits the agreement offer couples include:

  • Protection of family inheritance
  • Protection of their child’s/children’s financial security
  • Security over business or personal assets made before entering into marriage
  • Takes away lengthy and expensive court settlements in case the marriage does not work

Prenuptial agreements will have to be discussed openly, honestly and candidly, though, so as not to create any feeling of mistrust. Both parties should understand its real aim too to make them appreciate it more. And, upon agreeing to enter into the agreement, make sure to get the help of a family lawyer who understands well what needs to be included and specified in the agreement.

Robotic Surgery Claim Refused by Jury

A jury has rejected a family’s wrongful death claim attached to surgical complications involving the da Vinci surgical robot.

surcigal robot controlsFred Taylor’s family filed the lawsuit claiming that the manufacturer of the surgery equipment failed to properly train the surgeon on how to use it, causing what should have been a routine prostate removal to turn into a 14-hour stretch of surgical mistakes and corrections. Mr. Taylor died four years later.

This week, a 12-person jury found no negligence on the hands of Intuitive Surgical, the robot’s manufacturer. There are more than 2,000 claims against the da Vinci machine, but this is believed to be the first case involving the robot to go to trial.

The da Vinci surgical assistance robot is meant to make surgery less invasive by being able to perform procedures using smaller incisions and making movements that would be impossible for a human hand. However, many surgeons lack experience using it on living subjects, leading to the influx of malpractice claims.

Amazon Employees File Back Pay Lawsuit

Online retail company Amazon is facing a lawsuit that could cost it upwards of $100 million.

metal detector theft prevention lawsuitThe company is being sued for back wages it refused to its warehouse employees. At the end of their shifts every day, Amazon forced these employees to wait in line for metal detectors when they were no longer on company time to prevent them from stealing goods. The suit claims that the workers should have been paid for this time since they were forced to remain at work for work-related purposes after their shifts were over.

It further contends that if Amazon had to pay these employees for the time they spent in its anti-theft lines, the company would have made a better effort to get them out in a timely fashion. As it stands, employees had to wait an inordinate amount of time to leave work after clocking out for the night.

Attorneys representing the Amazon employees estimate that this suit affects as many as 100,000 employees and plan to upgrade their case to the national level. If found liable, Amazon will have to pay back the employees for the time they lost.