Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Judge finds signature was not made by county treasurer’s estranged wife.
County treasurer Mike Morreale during the commissioners meeting in Freeland.
TL Staff Photo/Fred Adams
WILKES-BARRE – Saying there are questions regarding the authenticity of a signature, a judge has ruled a prenuptial agreement between Luzerne County Treasurer Michael Morreale and his estranged wife is invalid.
Senior Judge Clinton W. Smith determined the signature on the agreement was not made by Marita Morreale. But he stopped short of saying the signature was forged, as Marita Morreale had claimed.
The Morreales were married on July 25, 1983, while on a trip to Las Vegas. Marita Morreale filed for divorce in June 2002.
Michael Morreale had claimed his wife signed a prenuptial agreement prior to the wedding, but she insisted she never signed the document. She filed court papers in October 2006 seeking a ruling on the matter.
Smith held a hearing at which both sides testified. In his ruling issued Jan. 4, Smith said he found Marita Morreale more credible.
Smith noted Michael Morreale’s testimony had wavered regarding when and where Marita signed the document. Initially he insisted she signed it in the office of his attorney, Michael Butera. After Butera disputed that, Morreale changed his story, saying she had signed the agreement while they were in Las Vegas and that no other witness was present, Smith said.
Contacted Monday, Butera acknowledged Morreale’s testimony had changed, but said Morreale was not attempting to deceive the court. Butera said Morreale simply was unclear of the circumstances regarding the signing of the document given that it occurred more than 23 years ago.
Butera said Michael Morreale intends to appeal the ruling based on findings of a handwriting expert employed by Michael Morreale, who said the signature was authentic. A separate expert employed by Marita Morreale said the signature was forged. Butera said Michael Morreale believes his expert’s opinion was more conclusive, however, because he used a higher standard of analysis.
Smith noted the differing opinions in his ruling, but said the credibility issue outweighed the expert opinions.