<article_title>Barry_Bonds</article_title>
<edit_user>Movieguruman</edit_user>
<edit_time>Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:19:18 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>he is not retired.</edit_comment>
<edit_text>}} Barry Lamar Bonds (born July 24, 1964) is a<strong><strike> former </strike></strong>Major League Baseball player who is currently a free agent. Bonds has played for the Pittsburgh Pirates and San Francisco Giants from 1986 to 2007.&lt;ref name=&quot;freeagent&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; He is the son of former major league All-Star Bobby Bonds.&lt;ref name=BBEB&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; He debuted in the Major Leagues with the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1986 and joined the San Francisco Giants in 1993, where he stayed through 2007.</edit_text>
<turn_user>74.199.103.204<turn_user>
<turn_time>Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:35:56 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Personal Life & premarital agreement</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Facts in the article regarding the divorce and premarital agreement (PMA) to Sun Bonds are factually incorrect. For one, the Sun and Barry Bonds divorce escapade took years, not months, ended up in front of the Cal Supreme Court, and did not end until 2001, at the earliest. It also ended with special rules from the Cal Supreme Court in how to deal with PMA and then changes to California law, specifically to deal with what many felt was injustice under the law to Sun Bonds. I would also tie this to any article that might exist for California Community Property. California community property has a rule in place for PMA entered into before Jan. 2002 that is named the Bonds Rule, after this case. :-) It was promulgated by the California Supreme Court when it had to deal with the divorce case between Barry and Sun. I am not sure about the final determination (likely settled) but the Appellate Court, after the Supreme Court remanded the case, held this as its final conclusion: "We reverse that part of the judgment finding that Barry did not transmute the Murietta, Pennsylvania, and Atherton properties into community property. We remand for the trial court to divide the community property consistent with this opinion and to redetermine the issue of the duration of spousal support. Sun is awarded costs on appeal." --&gt; in plain English: Sun still had a property interest in the 3 homes, still was eligible for support, and it was sent back down to the family court to make a final determination. The agreement was valid but strictly construed and not as favorable to Barry as the initial judge had held. --&gt; Source: 2001 WL 1191386 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) (written by Judge Lamden) As for the Supreme Court Case, In re Marriage Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1, (2000) (written by Chief Justice George), it held that there are a number of factors that go into whether the PMA is valid. Those include (1) the amount of time between the execution of the PMA and the wedding; 2) whether the PM was expected or was a surprise when it was presented; 3) whether the other party had legal counsel or the opportunity to consult counsel; 4) any inequiety in bargaining power between the parties; 5) disclosure; and 6) whether the parties understood the nature and effect of the agreement. Almost immediately after the Cal Supremes spoke, the Cal legislature passed Family Code 1615 that set the bar high and specifically provided for defenses in the law that Sun used against Barry. Two key parts. Voluntary means there is no fraud, coercion, and lack of knowledge. Second, a PMA is not voluntary unless the party seeking to enforce the PMA (Barry) showed that the other party (Sun): 1) had independent legal counsel or waived her right to counsel in writing; 2) had at least seven days to review the agreement; and 3) was fully advised in writing of all the rights and obligations that attached to executing the PMA. Of course, this does not apply to the Sun/Barry case but it was specifcally meant to prevent similar injustice to occur as a result of similar circumstances. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&amp;group=01001-02000&amp;file=1610-1617 http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Related_Statutes.gif&amp;sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules%20%26%20Regulations/Related%20Statutes&amp;sHeading=Family%20Code&amp;sCatHtmlPath=calbar_rs_rules.jsp&amp;sRule=57169 autosigned—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodanny (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>autosigned—Preceding unsigned comment added by </turn_text>