From the pages of Washington Supreme Court decisions today comes one that may not have tremendous precedential import (or, maybe it will within the field of family law) but makes up a pretty astonishing read.
In re Marriage of Bernard is the tale of a pre-nuptial agreement, and the wording is intentional: This is a story a small novel could be wrapped around, and maybe one will. It concerns a pre-nuptial agreement insisted on by a wealthy man prior to marriage; the high court tossed it out as procedurally and substantively unfair. The thread of fact and argument are best read there.
But you come away with the thought: If the pre-nup was this difficult, how did either of them ever think the marriage was going to work?