Estate Planning On Your Second Marriage

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

Estate planning in Maryland involves more than just financial aspects; it covers various documents designed to serve specific purposes. A Last Will & Testament allows for the detailed distribution of assets and avoids intestacy. An Advance Directive (medical power of attorney) allows individuals to plan healthcare decisions in advance by naming agents to make choices when needed.

In Maryland, powers of attorney (POAs) come in various forms, with medical POAs referred to as "advance directives." These allow individuals to make healthcare decisions for someone else, following detailed instructions set by the principal. Advance directives, also known as living wills, provide clarity on life-sustaining treatments and healthcare decisions.

A Power of Attorney (POA) allows the principal to grant decision-making authority to an attorney in fact for various purposes, such as health or financial decisions. In Maryland, there are strict technical requirements to create a valid POA, such as witness and notary requirements, capacity, and residency. Additionally, the attorney in fact has a fiduciary duty to act in the principal's best interest and must keep records of all transactions.

Contempt of court in Maryland can be criminal or civil, with direct and constructive forms of each. In Stoltz v. Stoltz (2024), a husband was cited for contempt after issuing a $100,000 check to his wife with a stop payment, preventing her from cashing it. However, the case was ruled as improper because the settlement agreement had not yet been integrated into a formal court order at the time.