Despite ‘whirlwind’ romance, no fraud found in Brooklyn prenup

October 30, 2014 By Charisma L. Troiano, Esq. Brooklyn Daily Eagle

Hon. Jeffery Sunshine. Photo by Mario Belluomo

Share this:

A Brooklyn judge refused to nullify a prenuptial agreement despite arguments by the wife that she was fraudulently induced into signing the agreement.

Before meeting her eventual husband, Ezra Braha, Rina Braha was a divorced single mother raising two small children on an income of $2,000 a month. She was swept off her feet by Mr. Braha, who at 33 was 10 years her senior and a millionaire, and after a “whirlwind engagement of less than three weeks,” the couple married in December 2002.

Prior to the ceremony, Mr. Braha informed his fiancée that his father threatened to financially “cut him off” if the couple did not execute a prenuptial agreement. According to Ms. Braha, her husband devised a scheme to fool his father into thinking that the couple had actually entered into a real agreement. On their honeymoon cruise, the couple ripped up their signed copies of the prenuptial agreement and threw the pieces into the ocean.

Now seeking to enforce the terms of the agreement, in particular the denial of spousal support, Mr. Braha petitioned the court that the agreement was valid as written and therefore enforceable. The wife, on the other hand, argued that she was fraudulently induced into signing the agreement with the understanding that her husband never planned to enforce the terms and that the agreement was merely a symbolic gesture for her father-in-law.

“Make no mistake, at no time did I ever intend to solely deceive my father,” Mr. Braha told the court.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Jeffery Sunshine, found the facts insufficient to find fraud.

For one, Ms. Braha had an attorney look over the agreement and the opportunity to negotiate the agreement terms, the judge noted. Ms. Braha contended that while her attorney was present, her attorney was also a part of the scheme. According to court records, Ms. Braha’s former attorney affirmed that “he did not negotiate the terms of the agreement, since both plaintiff and defendant made it clear to him that the agreement would be torn up and thrown into the ocean on their honeymoon.”

The omission of actual legal advice is not the fault of the husband, Sunshine held, and thus not sufficient for a finding of fraud.

“The court also notes that [Ms. Braha] was represented by counsel of her choosing… even if she chose not to ask for…his advice,” Sunshine wrote in his decision on the case.

The fact that Mr. Braha paid his wife’s legal fees did not sway the court.

“[I]t has been held that the fact that [one spouse] paid for [the other’s] attorney does not by itself raise a triable issue of fact as to duress,” Sunshine advised.

Ms. Braha said she felt pressure to sign the agreement because the wedding would be called off otherwise. However, New York case law has held “that the exercise or threatened exercise of a legal right does not amount to duress.

Sunshine also found little merit in the supposed oral agreement between the Brahas that they would not enforce the agreement, adding, “[Ms. Braha’s] claim that the parties orally agreed that they would not be bound by the terms of the agreement is specious.”

Brooklyn attorney Laurie Mermelstein of Seidemann & Mermelstein represented Ms. Braha. Attorney Brian Perskin appeared for Mr. Braha.