Pregnancy Is Not Duress for Pre-Nup Defense
Tennessee case summary on pre-nuptial agreements (pre-nups) and property division classification in divorce.
Prenuptial Agreement Held Valid and Enforceable
Barbara Matthews Law v. Halbert Grant Law, Jr.
Wife knew the contents of the agreement and had the opportunity to examine them. She was educated, had experience in the legal industry, and had access to an independent attorney.
The husband and wife in this Hamilton County, Tennessee, case executed a prenuptial agreement the day before their 1992 marriage. The wife filed for divorce in 2017.
The trial court found that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable and divided their property. The wife received the family home, and $4500 per month alimony in futuro. Both parties brought an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court first addressed the issue of the prenuptial agreement, and noted that Tennessee law generally favored such agreements, as long as they are entered into freely, knowledgably, and in good faith.
On appeal, the wife argued that the agreement was not executed in good faith. She argued that she was acting under duress, given that she was pregnant at the time.
The appeals court analyzed the lower court’s decision and agreed that the husband had met his burden of proof that the agreement was executed properly. In particular, the court held that the wife knew the contents of the agreement and had the opportunity to examine them. She was educated, had experience in the legal industry, and had access to an independent attorney.
The appeals court also agreed that there was no duress.
The appeals court next turned to the award of the house to the wife. In this case, the house was listed in the prenuptial agreement as a separate asset, and the court held that this was enforceable. However, the wife argued that giving it to her was proper because the asset had transmuted into marital property. It examined the evidence and determined that the evidence was insufficient to show that the asset had transmuted. Therefore, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s holding that the house should go to the wife.
The husband also argued that his brokerage checking account and investment account was his separate property, but here, the appeals court held that asset had transmuted into marital property. The trial court had awarded the asset to the husband as his separate property, and the appeals court reversed this portion of the judgment.
The wife also argued on appeal that she should have received more alimony. On this issue, the appeals court held that since the property distribution would need to be changed on remand, the trial court should reexamine the alimony issue as well.
The wife also requested attorney’s fees on appeal, but this request was denied.
For these reasons, the appeals court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case.
No. E2021–00206-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Prenuptial Agreement: Pros and Cons in Tennessee Divorce Law.
