Ruling Clouds Many Prenuptial Pacts

SAN FRANCISCO — In a ruling that may jeopardize thousands of prenuptial agreements in California, a state Court of Appeal on Monday invalidated a premarital contract signed by San Francisco Giants baseball star Barry Bonds and his former wife.

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco established new standards for determining the validity of prenuptial agreements, increasing the vulnerability of contracts in which one of the signers did not have a lawyer. The ruling is expected to change how prenuptial agreements are prepared.

The court said the decision was necessary because prenuptial agreements “profoundly affect not only the bride and groom, but also members of their prospective family.”

But a dissenting justice complained that the ruling will “threaten the continued viability of thousands of existing premarital agreements” in California. The ruling is binding on all trial courts in the state.

The decision overturned the prenuptial agreement between the Giants outfielder and his first wife, Sun Bonds. Signed on the eve of their Las Vegas wedding in February 1988, the contract established that future earnings would be kept separate and barred claims to community property upon divorce.

At the time, Bonds earned $106,000 a year as a player for the Pittsburgh Pirates. When the couple parted, he was earning $8 million a year. He now must share with Sun Bonds half of the wealth accumulated during their seven-year marriage.

Ronald Anteau, a Beverly Hills family law attorney, said the ruling demonstrates “the strong need” for the state Legislature to clarify laws about premarital agreements.

“Before, these agreements were only fashionable with wealthier people,” Anteau said, “but now large numbers of other people are using them. It is important that the Legislature come up with some definitive rules to guide not only lawyers but the courts in how to make these agreements more enforceable.”

In recent years, more men have been demanding that their fiancees sign pre-marriage contracts, said Robert A. Adelman, a professor at the University of LaVerne School of Law and expert on family law.

“The bargaining attitude is becoming more and more polarized,” Adelman said.

In the past, he added, prenuptial agreements were mostly limited to older men marrying younger women. “Now we see them with first marriages of young people.”

UC Berkeley professor Franklin Zimring, another family law expert, said the court ruling will force lawyers to be more careful in drawing up prenuptial agreements--a good result, in his opinion.

But the ruling may also drive up the cost of premarital contracts, he worries. “If it is going to create a perceived need for two lawyers per couple, that is a pretty significant cost factor,” he said.

In Bonds’ case, the court found the premarital agreement invalid because Sun Bonds did not have an attorney and was not advised to get one when she signed the contract. A financial advisor for Bonds told her that the wedding the next day would be canceled unless she signed.

Barry Bonds had two attorneys and a financial advisor present during the signing. Sun Bonds, a Swedish immigrant, was accompanied only by a friend from Sweden.

A San Mateo County Superior Court judge who had previously upheld the agreement failed to give enough weight to “this unequal bargaining power” and “improperly determined that Sun’s lack of representation was inconsequential,” the appeals court said.

When one signer has no lawyer, no opportunity to get one and does not knowingly refuse legal counsel, a challenged prenuptial agreement must be strictly scrutinized by a court, Justice James Lambden wrote for the court. Justice J. Anthony Kline concurred.

Bonds and Sun, both 23 when they met, lived together briefly before they decided to marry. Bonds said they frequently discussed plans to keep their finances separate, and his wife-to-be assured him she wanted no part of his money.

The pair had a brief meeting with Bonds’ lawyers, one of whom said he told Sun Bonds that she might want to consult her own attorney. Just before the couple was to fly from Phoenix to Las Vegas for the wedding, they met with Bonds’ representatives to sign the contract. Neither Bonds nor Sun had seen it before the meeting, and the document was riddled with typographical errors, the appeals court said.

Sun Bonds later said: “I didn’t know how it worked with attorneys, that you have one and I have one.”

The couple had two children, and Sun Bonds did not work after the marriage.

“Courts must more carefully scrutinize the process,” the appeals court said, “when the bargaining relationship is so unequal that only one party has legal representation and the party without representation does not have any particular legal skills or business acumen and agrees to forgo his or her [legal] rights.”

Dissenting Justice Ignazio Ruvolo complained that the court’s “new legal standards are so ambiguous and ill-defined that they will only serve to induce unwarranted confusion and inconsistent results.”

There was no evidence that Sun Bonds tried to postpone the signing of the prenuptial agreement, “although she was repeatedly given the opportunity to do so,” Justice Ruvolo said.

Paige Leslie Wickland, the appellate attorney for Sun Bonds, said the guidelines established by the court set up “a standard of equality.”

“You cannot just tell someone they have a right to an attorney and not tell them why they need one,” the San Francisco lawyer said. “You must be clear that you are representing the party whose interests are different. . . . You shouldn’t have to cancel your wedding in order to have time to look at the agreement or get an attorney.”’

Wickland said she expects the case will be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Richard Sherman, the attorney for Barry Bonds, could not be reached for comment.

A trial court previously awarded Sun Bonds $10,000 a month in child support for each child and, for a temporary period, $10,000 a month in spousal support. Monday’s ruling upheld the child support, but left it to the trial court to determine future spousal support in light of Sun’s victory in obtaining half of the couple’s assets.

Sun Bonds, who has not remarried, has 80% custody of the children.

Times staff writer Davan Maharaj contributed to this story.