Turfe v. Turfe

The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that wife had not intentionally misrepresented her intention to be bound by the mahr agreement in order to induce husband to enter into the marriage. The trial court found that the parties had different interpretations of the mahr agreement, which they did not discuss with one another, and that husband made the assumption that wife shared his interpretation of the agreement. Therefore, the court held that the trial court properly found that husband failed to meet his burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that wife fraudulently induced him to enter into the marriage. View "Turfe v. Turfe" on Justia Law