California Assembly Bill AB1380

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/22/19
• Refer: 3/14/19
• Report Pass: 4/30/19
• Engrossed: 5/9/19
• Refer: 5/9/19
• Refer: 5/22/19
• Report Pass: 6/10/19
• Refer: 6/10/19
• Report Pass: 6/19/19
• Enrolled: 8/12/19
• Chaptered: 8/30/19
• Passed: 8/30/19

Caption

Premarital agreements: enforcement.

Impact

The bill's amendments will impact how premarital agreements are prepared and enforced in California. By clarifying the criteria for voluntary execution of such agreements, the legislation seeks to protect individuals from coercion and misunderstanding. These changes are particularly relevant for couples looking to establish premarital agreements moving forward from its enactment, specifically targeting agreements executed on or after January 1, 2020. This amendment may reduce the likelihood of court disputes over enforceability based on claims of lack of understanding or voluntariness.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 1380, known as the Premarital Agreements Enforcement Bill, amends Section 1615 of the Family Code in California. The bill establishes clearer rules regarding the enforceability of premarital agreements, emphasizing that such agreements cannot be enforced unless the parties involved have met specific criteria. This includes being represented by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement or having a clear advisement to seek such counsel at least seven days before signing. This change is aimed at ensuring that individuals fully understand the implications of their consent and agreements before they are legally bound.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1380 has been generally positive amongst supporters who advocate for clearer guidelines and better protection for individuals entering into premarital agreements. Proponents argue that it reinforces the necessity for informed consent and legal representation, which can help prevent future disputes and ensure fairness in marital contracts. However, some dissent may stem from concerns about the additional legal requirements being seen as a hurdle for couples who may prefer a more straightforward process.

Contention

Notably, discussions around this bill have highlighted tension between the need for protection and the desire for simplicity in family law practices. While advocates for the bill see the seven-day advisement rule as a vital consumer protection measure, critics may argue that it complicates and delays the process for couples eager to formalize their union. The law's declaration that the new regulations apply only to future agreements also means that existing contracts may remain subject to older interpretations of enforceability.