Well, one lady in Maryland, Anna Cristina Niceta, got the I-won’t-fuck-around-again promise in writing, and — are we surprised? — her FW cheated again. Then he tried to argue that the post-nup he signed was invalid. Because… dunno… consequences.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled Oct. 26 against Thomas L. Lloyd, who claimed that the pricey penalty in a postnuptial agreement was void because it lacked consideration, was unconscionable and was the result of undue influence.
The appeals court ruled against Lloyd on all three arguments.
LOL. What undue influence was that, Thomas? The never-thought-I’d-get-caught vapors?
Nice to see these things are binding.
More from the ABA:
Niceta discovered Lloyd’s first affair in June 2014. As they began working on a reconciliation, Niceta asked Lloyd to retitle his existing financial accounts in both their names and to enter into a postnuptial agreement for her to feel secure in their future together, the opinion said.
Niceta’s lawyers presented Lloyd with a “lump sum” clause in a draft prenup that said Lloyd would pay $5 million if he engaged in “inappropriate and/or immoral conduct” with his former paramour or any party outside the marriage.
Lloyd suggested increasing the penalty to $7 million as a showing of his good faith, his lawyer testified.
Lloyd and Niceta signed the agreement in 2015—against the advice of his lawyers.
The 2015 prenuptial agreement stated that Niceta was “working on forgiving” Lloyd for his prior adultery. Lloyd promised to pay the penalty if he engaged in “adultery, buggery or sodomy” or other inappropriate conduct. That conduct triggering the penalty also included sexting and “romantically kissing, hugging, fondling or embracing another person.”
Hope the $7 million fondle was worth it, bro.
The appeals court did not buy his sad sausage, I know not what I sign, bullshit:
“Lloyd alone was the trigger of the penalty, and the circuit court found that he had acted with free will in the negotiation of the agreement and thereafter.”
Lloyd wasn’t under the undue influence of his wife. “To the contrary,” the appeals court said, “the court’s factual findings were that Mr. Lloyd did exercise free will in the negotiation of the agreement, and Ms. Niceta’s coercive behaviors were insufficient to show undue influence/duress.”
Whomp, whomp… But can you put a price on exuberant aliveness?