Bertoncini v. L.Bertoncini(1984)

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS

VOL. 1

[1 P. S. Ct. R 24]

MELODY BERTONCINI,

Petitioner

LAWRENCE BERTONCINI,

Respondent

Ponape Civil Action No. 28-84

Ponape State Court

July 6, 1984

Petition for final decree of divorce and final distribution of property. The Ponape State Court, EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief, Justice, in granting the petition, held that all real and personal property acquired before the marriage of petitioner and respondent remained the separate property of petitioner and respondent pursuant to the terms of the Antenuptial Agreement between the parties dated September 8, 1980.

Domestic Relations - Divorce - Antenuptial Agreement Between Spouses

Where spouses enter into a valid antenuptial agreement in respect of the disposition of their property the Court will give affect to such agreement.

Counsel for Petitioner: Fred Ramp

Counsel for Respondent: Pro Se

The above-entitled cause came before this Court by petition filed by petitioner on March 30,1984. 4n March 31,1984, an order was entered granting legal separation of the parties and setting forth a temporary disposition of property. By motion filed July

[1 P. S. Ct. R 25]

6, 1984, petitioner seeks a final decree of divorce and final distribution of property. Respondent joins in that motion.

The Court examined the pleadings and the evidence in support thereof. The Court is of the opinion that the material allegations in plaintiff's original petition are supported by the evidence. The Court finds that grounds for divorce do in fact exist as set forth in the Petition for Divorce.

It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed:

1. The bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between petitioner and respondent are dissolved and petitioner is granted a divorce from respondent.

2. The petitioner shall restore her maiden name, to wit, Melody Tell.

3. All real and personal property acquired before the marriage of petitioner and respondent remain the separate property of petitioner and respondent pursuant to the terms of the An nuptial Agreement between petitioner and respondent dated September 8, 1980, attached as Exhibit A to the Petition for Divorce.

4. The personal property of petitioner and respondent acquired

[1 P. S. Ct. R 26]

during marriage is divided as follows:

(a) The 1981 Toyota Starlet car is the property of petitioner.

(b) The household effects accumulated by petitioner and respondent during their marriage are the property of petitioner.

(d) Bank accounts, wherever situated, are the property of the party whose name appears on the account.

5. Respondent shall pay no alimony to petitioner.

6. Costs shall be borne by the party who incurred them.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL. 1 [1 P. S. Ct. R 24] MELODY BERTONCINI, Petitioner v. LAWRENCE BERTONCINI, Respondent Ponape Civil Action No. 28-84 Ponape State Court July 6, 1984 Petition for final decree of divorce and final distribution of property. The Ponape State Court, EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief, Justice, in granting the petition, held that all real and personal property acquired before the marriage of petitioner and respondent remained the separate property of petitioner and respondent pursuant to the terms of the Antenuptial Agreement between the parties dated September 8, 1980. Domestic Relations - Divorce - Antenuptial Agreement Between Spouses Where spouses enter into a valid antenuptial agreement in respect of the disposition of their property the Court will give affect to such agreement. Counsel for Petitioner: Fred Ramp Counsel for Respondent: Pro Se The above-entitled cause came before this Court by petition filed by petitioner on March 30,1984. 4n March 31,1984, an order was entered granting legal separation of the parties and setting forth a temporary disposition of property. By motion filed July [1 P. S. Ct. R 25] 6, 1984, petitioner seeks a final decree of divorce and final distribution of property. Respondent joins in that motion. The Court examined the pleadings and the evidence in support thereof. The Court is of the opinion that the material allegations in plaintiff's original petition are supported by the evidence. The Court finds that grounds for divorce do in fact exist as set forth in the Petition for Divorce. It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed: 1. The bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between petitioner and respondent are dissolved and petitioner is granted a divorce from respondent. 2. The petitioner shall restore her maiden name, to wit, Melody Tell. 3. All real and personal property acquired before the marriage of petitioner and respondent remain the separate property of petitioner and respondent pursuant to the terms of the An nuptial Agreement between petitioner and respondent dated September 8, 1980, attached as Exhibit A to the Petition for Divorce. 4. The personal property of petitioner and respondent acquired [1 P. S. Ct. R 26] during marriage is divided as follows: (a) The 1981 Toyota Starlet car is the property of petitioner. (b) The household effects accumulated by petitioner and respondent during their marriage are the property of petitioner. (c) The Honda 185 cc motorcycle is the property of respondent. (d) Bank accounts, wherever situated, are the property of the party whose name appears on the account. 5. Respondent shall pay no alimony to petitioner. 6. Costs shall be borne by the party who incurred them.