Steed v. Steed CA2/6

Filed 1/25/21 Steed v. Steed CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ERIN E. STEED, 2d Civ. No. B300907 (Super. Ct. No. 18FL-0394) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

AARON B. STEED,

Defendant and Respondent.

In this interlocutory appeal, wife challenges the trial court’s rulings that the termination of the parties’ premarital agreement was procured by undue influence. We affirm. FACTS Aaron Steed (Husband) started his business, Meathead Movers (Meathead), with his brother Evan in 1997 when Husband was a junior in high school. Meathead became a successful moving company. Husband and his future wife Erin Steed (Wife) began dating in 2005. Wife had a bachelor’s degree in accounting and business. She became a certified paralegal and worked for law

firms in that capacity. Husband had taken a few college courses but never earned a degree. In 2006, Wife began working in accounting for Meathead. The parties became engaged later that year. The parties executed a premarital agreement (PMA). In negotiating and executing the PMA, each party was represented by counsel. The PMA provided that neither party would obtain a community property interest in the other party’s separate property by virtue of their efforts during marriage. At the time the parties executed the PMA, Husband’s separate property, including Meathead, was valued at $3 million. Wife had very little separate property. The parties married in 2008. Wife became the controller of Meathead. When the company needed lawyers with different specialties, she developed a “legal bench.” She managed the large legal and human resource problems for the company. Husband discussed all business and personal decisions with Wife. He relied on her business and legal education and experience. He would immediately sign whatever documents she instructed him to sign. He placed trust and confidence in her. Meathead’s income continued to increase each year. Between 2008 and 2012, Meathead enjoyed significant growth in gross income, size, and number of employees. During the marriage, Wife would complain that she was not building anything. She was just an employee building Husband’s business. She wanted to terminate the PMA, but he refused. On April 23, 2012, Wife presented Husband with a termination of the PMA form. She did not seek advice of legal counsel. Instead, she downloaded the form from a legal website.