A simple argument can be made on the basis of a dictionary definition of „separation agreement.“ The term is described as „the agreement between spouses in the divorce or separation process in relation to child support, alimony, distribution of assets, custody and support of children, etc.“ (Added emphasis.) Black`s Law Dictionary 1572 (10th edition 2014). On the other hand, a „post-nuclear arrangement“ is as follows: and while this language certainly supports David`s argument, it is not at all clear why the panel mentioned it, because the parties did not question the validity of the agreement. The discussion of K.S.A. 60-1610 (b) (3) is therefore, at best, dikta. In the worst case scenario, the panel`s analysis is fundamentally wrong in confusing the separation agreement of K.S.A. 60-1610 (b) (3) with the verification of the wealth management authority of a district court in accordance with K.S.A. 60-1610 (b) (1) in the absence of an agreement. Moreover, the invocation of the Practioner To Kansas Family Law 8.1 is also criticized because, in its introductory section on transaction agreements, it is said that, standing up, these distinctions are probably sufficient to merit a different result than that found by the District Court, but we are faced with an even more fundamental distinction. The Ranney Agreement was a marriage agreement and not a separation agreement that was to be reviewed in accordance with K.S.A.
60-1610 (b) (3). Thus, the public policy investigation that the district court was to conclude under its jurisdiction duplicated the type of real estate department of the agreement, the analysis that was carried out during the verification of the „fairness and fairness“ of a separation agreement, as part of the second statute procedure. Since the common law exists only if there is no legal right, it is difficult to pursue this specific analysis of public policy when verifying separation agreements in accordance with K.S.A. 60-1610 (b) (3). Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. Strnad, 255 Kan. 657, 663, 876 p.2d 1362 (1994) ([D]he Common Law exists only if there is no legal right. It is the law of necessity. »). Once Parliament has spoken, the declaration of law replaces the common law.
See K.S.A. 77-109; U.S.D. n° 501, Baker, 269 Kan. 239, 243, 6 P.3d 848 (2000). The Separation Agreements Act does not explicitly define its scope. It states in a relevant section that the regional court struck down the Trasters agreement for both reasons. It has quashed or annulled public order and refers to the jurisprudence relating to a matrimonial agreement which should not be reviewed in accordance with K.S.A. 60-1610 (b) (3). The District Court ruled that the agreement gave David a significant financial incentive for divorce because of the disproportionate distribution of assets. On the basis of these considerations, it also considered that the treaty was inappropriate and unfair.
We`re checking both plants. The District Court focused only on the current heritage department and did not explicitly consider the Trasters` explicit reasons for this distribution, i.e. debra`s parents as a source of property, Debra`s medical circumstances and the financial consequences for Debra if they and David divorced.