In a landmark case decided on August 5, 2021, the California Court of Appeal tackled a complex intersection of family law, estate planning, and legal malpractice in Knapp v. Ginsberg (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 504. The court’s ruling offers a cautionary tale for attorneys involved in preparing prenuptial agreements—and a strong reminder of the strict requirements imposed by California Family Code § 1615.
Case Background: Love, Law, and the Perugia Property
Brooke Knapp married media executive Grant Tinker in 2004. Before their wedding, they signed a prenuptial agreement (PMA). Knapp’s attorney, Larry Ginsberg, represented her during the negotiation and preparation of the PMA. Tinker, however, did not have an attorney, nor did he sign a separate waiver of legal counsel, which is required under Family Code § 1615 for a PMA to be enforceable if one party is unrepresented.
Fast forward to Tinker’s death in 2016—Knapp found herself embroiled in probate litigation with Tinker’s children, who questioned amendments to Tinker’s estate plan and alleged undue influence.
The Legal Malpractice Claim
Knapp eventually sued Ginsberg for legal malpractice, claiming that his failure to ensure Tinker either had independent counsel or signed the required waiver rendered the PMA unenforceable. As a result, she argued, she lost significant rights under the agreement, including $4 million in reimbursements for mortgage payments on their home.
Ginsberg responded that:
-
Tinker ratified the agreement in later estate planning documents.
-
There was no conclusive evidence Tinker lacked counsel.
-
The malpractice claim was time-barred.
The trial court initially granted summary judgment in Ginsberg’s favor.
Court of Appeal: A Critical Reversal
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding:
-
A PMA that fails to comply with § 1615 is void—not merely voidable—and cannot be ratified, even by later estate planning documents.
-
Whether Tinker had legal representation at the time of signing was a triable issue of fact.
-
The statute of limitations had been properly tolled until Knapp incurred actual damages.
This means Knapp’s malpractice claim was allowed to proceed.
Why This Case Matters
This ruling sets an important precedent:
-
Failure to follow the formalities of Family Code § 1615—especially regarding independent counsel—can completely invalidate a prenuptial agreement.
-
Attorneys involved in drafting PMAs must ensure strict compliance, or risk malpractice exposure.
-
A party cannot later “ratify” a void PMA through subsequent legal actions.
Key Takeaways for Attorneys and Clients
-
Independent Counsel Matters: Each party should have their own lawyer, or an explicit waiver must be signed.
-
Void Means Void: Courts interpret non-compliant PMAs as entirely unenforceable.
-
Litigation Risks: Probate and family law intersect—malpractice claims may arise years later during estate disputes.
Final Thoughts
Knapp v. Ginsberg is a vital reminder of how a seemingly minor procedural error in a prenuptial agreement can have multi-million-dollar consequences. It reinforces that when it comes to prenuptial agreements, precision and procedural compliance are not just best practices—they are essential.
