The woman supports her assertion that there is no financial transparency. The only financial information that the husband did not disclose prior to the execution of the preliminary contract was the specific contents of his safe in California. The agreement provides that the contents of all chests outside the three-state zone could be verified by the woman within ten weeks of marriage. (e.g. 1, p. 15, men`s cross movement). The husband`s list of assets indicated that the contents of the safe were approximately $100,000. The woman doesn`t say if she`s ever inspected that safe. In any event, the non-disclosure of all the financial interests of a party is not a reason to invalidate the agreement. See, Anonymous v.
Anonymous, 123 AD3d 581, 583 (1st Dep`t 2014). Four months before the conclusion of the marriage contract, the parties entered into a correspondence agreement of May 28, 2006 (the “correspondence arrangement”). The correspondence agreement provides that this son could be excluded from residence if one of the woman`s three sons is offended by one of the parties during a visit to one of his residences of one of the parties. (Z.B. 1, men`s cross movement). In addition, access to the parties` residences was prohibited to one of the sons without the husband`s prior express permission. In the notice agreement, the parties amended the terms of the correspondence agreement to allow the excluded son to obtain the parties` residence permit if the wife was unable to act or if the son could not see the son otherwise. The booklet was added to the matrimonial agreement and attached to the framework. (e.g. 1, page 11, men`s cross movement).
Although the man`s lawyers prepared the first draft, the evidence shows that the woman`s lawyers made significant changes in future projects. The man`s lawyer forwarded an initial draft agreement to the woman`s lawyer on August 23, 2007. (Z.B. D, Zhou Aff. 11/9/18). On September 12, 2007, the Women`s Council sent a “final draft” to the husband`s lawyer. (Ex.C, Zhou Aff. 11/9/18). Some of the clauses that the woman claims are now abhorrent to her, such as the inclusion of the correspondence arrangement and the waiver of support, were prepared in the projects that her lawyers.
The wife claims that the husband insisted on the changes when the parties signed the prenuptial agreement. However, the revision of the final draft drawn up by their lawyers and the agreement in principle signed reveals only slight changes. The evidence also shows that each party essentially discloses its financial assets. In addition, the woman had the opportunity to learn about the man`s finances when they bought the marital apartment together and made a mortgage.