Laches and Estoppel Sample Clauses

Laches and Estoppel. Texas Family Code §4.008 also specifically provides that equitable defenses limiting the time for enforcement, including laches and estoppel, are available to either party. Id. The “Official Comment to the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act,” Section 8, provides that “a party is not completely free to sit on his or her rights because the section does preserve certain equitable defenses.” Under the express language of the statute, the “equitable defenses” limit “the time for enforcement....” In other words, such equitable defenses are not defenses to the premarital agreement itself, but rather, are defenses against contestability. Cf., Texas Family Code §4.006; Texas Family Code §4.105. Thus, it would seem that, under §4.008, during a marriage a party is not free to sit on his or her rights under a premarital agreement when some act by a party or other occurrence already has given rise to a cause of action under such agreement. In Fazakerly, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that Xxxx‟s claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the premarital agreement was void was barred by laches: The elements of laches are: (1) unreasonable delay by one having legal or equitable rights in asserting them and (2) a good faith change of position by another to his detriment because of the delay. Xxxxxx v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Tex. 1989). The record reflects that Xxxx knew about the antenuptial agreement which she and Xxxx signed the settlement agreement in May 1993. Xxxx asserted her claims against the antenuptial agreement five years after signing the settlement agreement. At the time Xxxx filed her second amended petition, Xxxx had been confined with Alzheimer‟s disease. She was no longer competent or even able to testify; her position had changed during the delay. Xxxx‟s claims, regardless of any statute of limitations, were barred by laches. That equitable doctrine attempts to prevent injustice against one party that could result when another asserts his demands so long after they matured that evidence has been lost or impaired. [citations omitted] Laches provided another ground for the trial court to strike Xxxx‟s pleadings attacking the antenuptial agreement‟s validity. 996 S.W.2d at 265. The following hypothetical may also illustrate the effect of §4.008. Under a premarital agreement, one spouse is required to make a series of payments to the other spouse at certain specified times after the marriage. The obligated spouse does not do so. The agg...