Blog

Factual Background:

Prior to their 1996 marriage, decedent asked Carolyn her thoughts on a prenuptial agreement.  When Carolyn responded that she never had one and knew no attorneys, decedent told Carolyn she did not need an attorney, and his attorney would draft the Agreement.  The Agreement stated it was made pursuant to Section 451.220 and essentially waived all rights of the surviving spouse, specifically the right to elect against a will.  Decedent supplied all the information for the Agreement, and Carolyn was never consulted by any attorney.  Six hours before the wedding, decedent presented the Agreement to Carolyn, asked her to sign it, and told her “not to worry—this is just protocol.”  Carolyn signed it without having time to read it in detail, without being able to ask questions, and without understanding the rights she was waiving.  Decedent died testate in 2008, and Carolyn learned for the first time that decedent had executed a will in 1995 leaving everything to his daughter and had not fully disclosed all of his assets in the Agreement.  The daughter sought to enforce the Agreement.  Carolyn filed a declaratory judgment against the daughter asking the Agreement be declared void and unenforceable.

 Crawford County Circuit Court, J. Bernstein, Held:

The  trial court set the Agreement aside.  The basis for the  trial court’s decision included findings and conclusions that Carolyn did not understand the Agreement, was unrepresented and uninformed, that there was a lack of full disclosure by decedent, that the Agreement was not supported by fair consideration, that Carolyn was “overreached and defrauded” by the Agreement, and that it was unconscionable.

Court of Appeals, J. Bates, Held:

Affirmed.  As the party seeking to enforce the Agreement, the daughter bore the burden of proving it complied with the requirements of Section 474.200.  As the surviving spouse of a person who died testate, Carolyn had a statutory right to elect to take against the will.  The daughter argued that Carolyn waived this statutory right by signing the Agreement.  One of the statutory requisites for a valid waiver is that “there be full disclosure of the nature and extent of the right being waived…”

Citing the Supreme Court case of In re Estate of Youngblood, the Court held that “contractual recitals” will not save a prenuptial agreement if the spouse surrendering martial rights demonstrates that there has been overreaching or imposition.  In this case, decedent had his attorney draft the Agreement, told Carolyn she did not need an attorney, presented it to Carolyn only six hours before their wedding requesting her to sign it immediately, and downplayed the importance of the Agreement.  The trial court’s conclusion that Carolyn had been overreached and defrauded was correct, and the daughter failed to meet her burden of proving that there was full disclosure as to the rights Carolyn was surrendering or that there full disclosure of decedent’s assets.