Maxine, the daughter of an oil tycoon, and Fred, a young man from a working class background, were engaged to be married in Arizona. At her father's urging, Maxine hired a lawyer to draft a prenuptial agreement for her and Fred. The lawyer prepared the agreement under the direction of Maxine's father. It provided that all assets that either party owned before marriage would remain that party's sole property, and all assets either party might acquire after marriage would be that person's sole property. The agreement also provided that neither party would seek spousal maintenance from the other. Maxine gave Fred the agreement one day before the wedding and suggested he get the advice of an attorney. Fred looked at the agreement and decided he didn't have time to get a lawyer's advice. Instead, he signed it, since it looked fair on its face. Maxine did not reveal to Fred that she already owned over a million dollars' worth of stock in her father's oil company. During the couple's relatively short marriage, Maxine gave birth to a son. After the infant was three months old, Maxine resumed working as an accountant with her father's company. Her father compensated her at the rate of $150,000 per year. Fred, on the other hand, stayed home to care for the couple's child. Maxine sold some of her stock and bought a luxury home with the proceeds. Fred helped choose furnishings for the home and helped landscape the property surrounding the home. Among other things, Fred built an outdoor kitchen and dining area. After five years of marriage, Maxine discovered that Fred had been having an affair with the maid. She filed for divorce and asked the court to enforce the prenuptial agreement in full. Because Fred had caused the divorce by his own infidelity, Maxine argued that Fred was not entitled to any assets from the marriage even if the prenuptial agreement were deemed invalid. In other words, she claimed ownership of the house and all improvements made to the property. In addition, she argued that Fred's sexual immorality was sufficient reason to grant her sole legal decision-making authority regarding their child. She was amenable to limited parenting time for Fred consisting of one weekend per month. Fred, on the other hand, argued that he had been the primary caregiver of the child and was entitled to sole legal decision-making authority regarding the child. In his view, Maxine was absent during the child's early years. Fred was willing to give Maxine limited parenting time, consisting of one day and night per week. As to the prenuptial agreement, Fred argued that it was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unfair. He argued that, at a minimum, he should get spousal maintenance because he sacrificed his own career to enable Maxine to work for her father. Fred acknowledged he was capable of minimum- wage work. During the divorce proceedings, the judge interviewed the couple's child. The little boy seemed torn by loyalty conflicts but told the judge he'd rather stay with his father. a. You are the judge hearing the divorce between Maxine and Fred. How will you resolve the dispute over legal decision-making? b. Is the prenuptial agreement valid and enforceable? c. Assuming the prenuptial agreement is not valid or enforceable, how will you divide the couple's property? Will you grant spousal maintenance to Fred