Marriage of Zucker

Holding

The court held that, for premarital agreements executed between 1986 and 2002, a trial court may rely on Family Code § 1612(a)(7) to shape public policy and may deem a spousal‑support limitation unenforceable solely because it is unconscionable at the time of enforcement, rather than being confined to the “unconscionable at execution” test of § 1615(a)(2). The court also corrected the attorney‑fee award arithmetic, ordered Mark to pay Kim $870,000, and remanded the pendente‑lite spousal‑support issue for further determination. All other trial‑court rulings were affirmed. ---