This article, by Paul L. Feinstein, Chicago family lawyer, is compiled of domestic disputes over nullifying a prenuptial agreement due to coercion.
When a party to a divorce seeks to invalidate a prenuptial agreement, it often is on the grounds of duress/coercion. Two aspects of that claim which seem to be raised most often are, that the wife-to-be is pregnant, that the husband-to-be threatened that without a prenuptial agreement there would be no marriage, and/or that the agreement was signed on the eve of the wedding. Recent cases throughout the nation have demonstrated that courts are reluctant to invalidate agreements on these bases. Some examples follow.
In August, 2006 the Appeals Court of Massachusetts in Biliouris v. Biliouris“free act and deed.”
In In re Marriage of DragDrag
In In re Marriage of BarnesIn re Marriage of Murphy
ALABAMA
In Kilborn v. Kilborn“Due to duress and being pregnant.”
PENNSYLVANIA
In Hamilton v. Hamilton“The record is clear that there was neither force nor threat of force used to induce Jill to sign the antenuptial agreement in this case. She was told, however, that without the agreement there would be no wedding. It is also true that she was pregnant, unemployed, and probably frightened. Nevertheless, she was represented by counsel, who was available to advise and did, in fact, advise her not to sign the agreement. Jill rejected this advice and signed the agreement. It seems clear, therefore, that she did not sign the agreement under duress. Where a party has been free to consult counsel before signing an agreement, the courts have uniformally rejected duress as a defense to that agreement.”“society has advanced, however, to the point where women are no longer regarded as the ‘weaker’ party in marriage or in society generally. Indeed, the stereotype that women serve as homemakers while men work as breadwinners is no longer viable. Quite often today both spouses are income earners. Nor is there viability in the presumption that women are uninformed, uneducated, and readily subjected to unfair advantage in marital agreements. Indeed, women nowadays quite often have substantial education, financial awareness, income, and assets.”
FLORIDA
In Baker v. Baker
In Herrera v. Herrera
INDIANA
In Rider v. Rider“Enforcement of the antenuptial agreement would leave one spouse with virtually all of the real and personal property, while leaving the other spouse with a modest income stream. This is what the parties brought into their short marriage, and this is what they sought to protect.”“While we sympathize with her, and we understand that enforcement of this contract eventually may force her to sell her home, we cannot find enforcement of this antenuptial agreement to be unconscionable.”
TEXAS
In Osorno v. Osorno“For duress to be a contract defense, it must consist of a threat to do something the threatening party has no legal right to do. (citation) In this case, aside from his moral duties, Henry had no legal duty to marry Gloria. His threat to do something he had the legal right to do is insufficient to invalidate the premarital agreement. Gloria was faced with difficult choices, but we cannot find her decision to sign the agreement was involuntary.”
GEORGIA
In Mallen v. Mallen
As can be seen, certain claims seem to commonly be raised, but these particular ones are not playing well throughout the country.
Paul L. Feinstein, a Chicago practitioner with over four decades of experience, practiceswith an emphasis on divorce litigation, consulting, and appeals.Paul is often hired by trial lawyers to handle appeals and to assist them with determining legal strategies and preserving a sufficient record at trialHe has belonged to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers since 1991 and theAppellate Lawyers Association since 2010.He can be reached at (312) 346-6392.