DeLorean v. DeLorean

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Somerset County, Family Part · 1986 · Family Law

511 A.2d 1257 (1986)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawpremarital agreementsarbitrationchoice of lawantenuptial agreementpremarital agreementfull disclosurevoluntariness

Facts

The parties signed an antenuptial agreement a few hours before their marriage in California providing that all property, income, and earnings acquired before and after marriage would remain the separate property of the acquiring spouse. The wife claimed the agreement should not be enforced because the husband did not fully disclose his financial affairs and because he pressured her to sign by threatening to cancel the wedding. The agreement stated it was to be construed under California law, and the husband had disclosed only general information that he owned substantial property and had interests such as a farm in California, land in Montana, and a share in a major league baseball club. After a New Jersey court ruled an earlier California divorce proceeding invalid for lack of residency, both parties formally agreed to have a retired California judge hear and decide the validity of the prenup, and he found it valid and enforceable.

Issue

Under the governing law, was the parties' antenuptial agreement valid and enforceable despite the wife's claims of inadequate disclosure and duress? Also, could the parties in a pending New Jersey matrimonial action validly submit the issue of the prenup's enforceability to binding arbitration?

Rule

An antenuptial agreement is enforceable only if it was entered voluntarily, is not unconscionable, and was preceded by the level of financial disclosure required by the governing law. Where the agreement expressly selects another state's law and the parties have substantial contacts with that state, that law governs construction and validity; and parties to a matrimonial dispute may, by formal written agreement, submit such an issue to binding arbitration, with judicial review limited to the statutory grounds in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Nora Feldman was given a premarital agreement three hours before her wedding to Victor Ames. Victor said he would not marry her unless she signed, but Nora then met privately with a lawyer arranged through Victor's office, received advice not to sign, stepped away for an hour, and ultimately chose to sign before the ceremony.

If Nora later challenges the agreement in a New Jersey divorce action on the ground of duress, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that voluntariness turns on whether the spouse signed without fraud or duress. A last-minute presentation and threat to cancel the wedding do not alone establish duress where the spouse had an opportunity to reflect, access to competent legal advice, and was not compelled to go through with the ceremony. On these facts, Nora most likely signed voluntarily.