A lone opinion this Friday.
On a personal level, I've never "gotten" prenuptial agreements. From my perspective—not that of SCOV Law or anyone associated with SCOV Law—marriage should be based on trust and love. If you don't implicitly trust the person you're going to marry, then don't get married. One could always be engaged for, say, seven years for adequate vetting. (Not that I know anyone who's pulled that little trick.) Maybe I don't "get" prenuptial agreements because I had negative net worth when I got married. I'm sure there's plenty more to unpack with my therapist should I choose to do so.
On a more-lawyerly level, I "get" it. People get married for all kinds of reasons. People have different ideas about what marriage means. And there's nothing we lawyers like better than planning for the worst-case scenario. I do get the idea of wanting to make sure that one is protected in the event of a breakdown in the marriage. People change. They say "love is blind" but often forget to mention that it can be unbelievably dumb as well. So, there's a purpose to ye olde prenup and I "get" it, though I've never been in a position that required one. And I got very lucky with the woman I chose to marry (after a seven-plus year engagement).
All this is to say that there's nothing wrong with planning for the worst. And that's what our couple from today's case tried to do. Danielle and Peter met in 2011 when Danielle was 21 and Peter was 36. They moved in together in 2012, had a kiddo in 2014, and got hitched in June 2015. Before the wedding, Peter asked for a prenuptial agreement. Danielle signed it one day before their wedding, against her lawyer's advice.
The agreement was comprehensive and basically said that all their stuff was separate and was to be separate going forward. But then there was the if-Peter-initiates-divorce-then-Danielle-gets-a-house clause (if Danielle starts the divorce, then it's waived).
Flash forward to 2019. Danielle moved out of the marital home and got a relief-from-abuse order. She then filed for divorce. She argued that the agreement was unconscionable because Peter "constructively forced" her to file for divorce.
The trial court first found the prenuptial agreement enforceable but misinterpreted the house proviso. Peter pointed out that Danielle initiated the divorce and therefore wasn't entitled to the house. So, the trial court changed direction and invalidated the whole agreement. It cited a Massachusetts case and reasoned the agreement was unconscionable because it would "essentially vitiate the very status of marriage" by leaving the parties in "exactly the situation they would be in if they had not married."
Peter appeals.
On appeal, SCOV reasons that prenuptial agreements don't have to be completely "fair" to be enforceable. SCOV reasons that if: (1) each spouse has made fair and reasonable financial disclosure; (2) each spouse entered the agreement voluntarily; (3) the substantive provisions dividing property are fair(ish); and (4) the agreement is not unconscionable, then it should stand.
SCOV notes that unconscionability is measured at the time the agreement is executed, not at the time of divorce. SCOV reverses the trial court on its unconscionability grounds and rejects the Massachusetts case's "fair and reasonable" standard.
SCOV says there is "nothing inherently unconscionable about a prenuptial contract that distributes assets differently depending on which spouse files for divorce." The decision leans toward freedom-to-contract principles.
SCOV does kick it back to the family court to consider Danielle's alternative arguments that Peter breached expectations in the agreement and "constructively forced" her to file for divorce, which could potentially negate some provisions. Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16.
Comments
Post a Comment