Family Law Advisor®
Articles

Why Prenuptial Agreements are Prudent

A premarital agreement acts as a safeguard for both you and yourspouse-to-be. It protects your assets and may prevent expensive and acrimoniouslitigation if a divorce should occur by defining the rights and responsibilitiesof the parties in advance.  With today's divorce rate hovering around 50%,a prenuptial agreement may be one of the most prudent decisions in yourlife.   This is particularly true for business owners who may wish topreserve what they have worked so hard to build. 

Minnesota Law

Prenuptial agreements governing property settlements upon dissolution arevalid in Minnesota. Englundv. Englund, 286 Minn. 227, 230, 175 N.W.2d 461, 463 (1970); Hillv. Hill, 356 N.W.2d 49, 53 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev.denied, (Feb. 19, 1985). The current requirements for a valid antenuptialagreement are contained in Minn.Stat. § 519.11 (1984).  Antenuptialagreements are enforceable if they are procedurally and substantively fair. McKee-Johnsonv. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 265 (Minn.1989). An antenuptial agreement isprocedurally fair if :

• there is a full and fair disclosure of theearnings and property of each party, and 
• the parties have had an opportunityto consult with legal counsel of their own choice. Minn.Stat.§ 519.11, subd. 1 (1998). 

The agreement must also be:

•   in writing;
•   executed in the presence of two witnesses; and 
• acknowledged by the parties before aperson authorized to administer an oath. Minn.Stat.§ 519.11, subd. 2 (1998).
  

In most cases prenuptial agreements are upheld.  It is only in caseswhere there was not full disclosure or the agreement becomes substantivelyunfair at the time of the divorce that Court's strike down the validity ofsuch agreements.  An agreement may deemed substantively unfair if thecircumstances on which the agreement was based have changed so drasticallythat enforcement would not comport with the reasonable expectations of theparties at inception.

Prenuptial Agreements & Spousal Maintenance

Courtsmost often find antenuptial agreements substantively unfair with regard toprovisions seeking to limit or eliminate spousal maintenance (alimony)payments. Minnesota Courts have ruled that there is sound public policy rationale fornot strictlyenforcing such a provisions which, even though entered into in good faith andreasonable at the time of execution, may have become unreasonable orunconscionable as to its application to the spouse upon divorce.  TheCourts are essentially attempting to prevent ex spouses from becoming wards ofthe state.  If one spouse's health and employabilityhave greatly deteriorated during a marriage, Courts may be reluctant to enforce the maintenanceprovisions of an antenuptial agreement.  Some cases that have been decided:

• Invalidated an antenuptial agreement which sought to preclude spousalmaintenance where the lesser earning spouse contracted a venereal diseasefrom he husband resulting in medical expenses;
• Invalidating an antenuptial agreement which sought to preclude spousalmaintenance where the marriage was long term (more than 20 years) and thewife had been out of the work force for some time and suffered from anemotional disability.   The trial court concluded thatunforeseen circumstances invalidated the antenuptial agreement byrendering it unconscionable.

-- Maury D. Beaulier, Esq. - Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC