Code, § 1100 et seq.), and waived those provisions, specifically stating that: “It is understood that for the purposes of negotiating and preparing this Agreement, Jan is not acting as a fiduciary for Ron and Ron is not acting as a fiduciary for Jan.”○ The parties understood there is a substantial issue under California law as to whether public policy allowed them to contract for a release of their fiduciary responsibilities to each other, and nonetheless voluntarily did so. Lachs, as a privately compensated judge pro tempore, to hear and determine all disputes arising from the post-marital agreement, including its validity and enforceability.Judge Lachs was also charged with resolving all other issues arising from the marital relationship, including child custody, child and spousal support, property rights, and so on.The parties stipulated that an evidentiary hearing focusing on the validity and enforceability of the post-marital agreement would constitute a bifurcated trial on that issue. Burkle sought to compel extensive discovery-which she had forgone when the post-marital agreement was in negotiation-to determine whether the financial and property disclosures and valuations in the schedules to the post-marital agreement were “truthful or fraudulent.” The court, however, declined to compel any discovery concerning the assets and liabilities identified on the schedules, limiting discovery-at this stage of the proceeding-to the circumstances surrounding the entry into the agreement.The court observed that: “If it turns out that the circumstances surrounding the entry into the agreement are such that it appears that Ms.Burkle did not conceal assets or significant financial information from Ms. We summarize post, in two categories roughly corresponding to the court's two ultimate conclusions and in a third general category, various of the court's findings, all of which are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Burkle's name so she would feel no financial pressure, and Ms.Burkle testified that she felt no financial pressure during the period culminating in the execution of the agreement.• In a conversation in which Mr. Burkle might receive under a post-marital agreement, Ms. Burkle she did not feel comfortable discussing financial issues with him directly.
Burkle obtained valuable benefits (though the community's interest in various “Yucaipa” companies) that had not been disclosed to Ms. These benefits were 75% of a million management contract termination fee, and 75% of million in Fred Meyer shares, received in return for surrender of Yucaipa warrants.Burkle was obligated to pay all family living expenses, described as “all expenses necessary to maintain the Parties and the Parties' minor children in a lifestyle consistent with that which each of them has maintained while living separate and apart during the last five (5) years.” The agreement recited that Mr. Burkle's marital living expenses during that period, an amount between 0,000 and 0,000 per year, net of taxes, an amount Ms. The agreement included a statement of intent and other recitals and provisions, including the following:• Ms.