After two days of testimony in a Los Angeles court, a judge will now consider whether a postnuptial agreement between Lisa Marie Presley and her estranged husband Michael Lockwood is enforceable and valid, RadarOnline.com can exclusively report.\n\nAttorneys for both parties presented their closing arguments on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2018 to Judge Dianna Gould-Saltman, who will now consider all testimonies and evidence before announcing her decision.In his closing argument, Presley’s attorney, Gary Fishbein, said there was nothing ambiguous about the November 2007 postnuptial agreement signed by Presley and Lockwood, which said neither parties would be awarded spousal support or community properties.\n\n“It wasn’t only Mr. Lockwood who waived his rights, my client also waived her rights,” Fishbein said. “Absent of either party having a crystal ball, no one would have known what would happen in the future.”At the time of the signing of the 2007 agreement, Presley listed her net worth at $62 million, while Lockwood, who was working for his wife on their music, had a negative net worth.\n\nFishbein said Lockwood had ample opportunity to contact his then attorney, Alan Neiman, to go over details of the postnuptial agreement, but instead Lockwood “was not interested” in examining the document.\n\n“It protects the parties' reasonable expectation at the time it was made …not 10 years later. ...Noting is unfair about the agreement that they entered into,” Fishbein said. “Mr. Lockwood had a choice. You can either sign on the dotted line… or you can say, ‘No, I won’t sign.’ His choice was, ‘I’m going to sign.’ And now he is bound by that choice."In his closing argument, Jeff Sturman, Lockwood’s attorney, said the 2007 agreement should not be deemed valid because under the law, people who marry still have "fiduciary duties” and obligations that they must abide by.\n\n“These aren’t people who are leasing a car,” Sturman said. “These are people who were married. The law is clear about spouses have higher obligations to each other."\n\nPresley only provided seven to eight lines concerning her finances, Sturman said. In contrast, Lockwood allegedly provided nine pages of his assets and other financial information.“The person with the negative worth is disclosing more than the person with $62 million,” Sturman said. “She wanted him to ‘go fish.’ She wanted that burden to be put on him.”\n\nSturman also said Lockwood did not read through the agreement because it was mostly “legalise,” and Lockwood was not able to meet with his attorney again before the documents were signed.\n\nFishbein, however, said Lockwood testified this week that he understood the meaning of the sentence that notes no spousal support will be provided to either parties.Sturman also said Presley and her then-attorney, Jane Saltsman, withheld information related to the agreement and took “unfair advantage” of Lockwood.\n\nHowever, Fishbein said claiming attorney-client privilege does not equate “willful suppression,” and Saltman did not thing wrong by not providing information that should only be shared with Presley.\n\nPresley, who was wearing a while shirt and black pants and boots, remained quiet through Wednesday’s hearing.Lockwood, wearing a blue suit, smiled as he left the courtroom after the hearing.\n\nWe pay for juicy info! Do you have a story for RadarOnline.com? Email us at email@example.com, or call us at (866) ON-RADAR (667-2327) any time, day or night.\n\nGet the exclusive celebrity scoop on all the stars you love before any of your friends by subscribing to our new podcast Straight Shuter below!