## Q31 key (Prenup Memo Audit)

1. Conclusion 1 is wrong. Independent counsel is relevant but not mandatory, and Nora received a meaningful opportunity, a payment offer, a clear nonrepresentation warning, and signed waiver. Missed: negotiations begin from a nonexistent automatic-invalidity rule.
2. Conclusion 2 is wrong. Unconscionability is assessed when executed, not from the present $38 million disparity or Nora's later disability. Missed: later appreciation is treated as retroactive execution misconduct.
3. Conclusion 3 should remain: the schedule identified the Quayside interest and a reasonable approximate range; the $2.1 million contemporaneous valuation does not make the $1.2-to-$1.8 million estimate materially undisclosed on these rules. Missed: a correct disclosure analysis is needlessly weakened.
4. Conclusion 4 should remain: maintenance may be ordered only to prevent public-assistance eligibility, while severability preserves the property and $150,000 provisions. Missed: Nora either waives available support or demands wholesale invalidation unlikely to succeed.
5. Conclusion 5 should remain: the timing record, earlier delivery, negotiated changes, no cancellation threat, and counsel opportunity support voluntariness. Missed: the audit manufactures a third error contrary to the record.
6. The likely destination is enforcement of the separate-property, appreciation, business, and fixed-payment provisions, with a limited maintenance order. Advise Nora to negotiate the support needed to avoid public assistance and payment mechanics, not stake the separation on voiding the whole agreement. Missed: settlement leverage is spent on losing theories.