Edwardson v. Edwardson

Supreme Court of Kentucky · 1990 · Family Law

Family LawAntenuptial agreementsMaintenanceProperty divisionDivorceprenuptial agreementantenuptial agreementdivorce

Facts

Both parties had been previously married. Before this marriage, they executed an antenuptial agreement providing that if the marriage were dissolved or the parties legally separated, the wife would receive $75 per week as maintenance for life or until remarriage, and the husband would maintain substantially similar medical and hospitalization insurance for her for life or until remarriage. The agreement also stated that, except as provided, neither party would have support obligations or claims against the other's property, and each would retain his or her separate estate and any increase or accretions. After about two and a half years of marital turbulence, the parties separated, and in the ensuing divorce action the wife sought to enforce the agreement.

Issue

May parties enter into an enforceable antenuptial agreement before marriage fixing maintenance and property rights in the event the marriage is dissolved? More broadly, is an antenuptial agreement that contemplates divorce and provides for maintenance and property disposition enforceable under Kentucky law?

Rule

Antenuptial agreements contemplating divorce are not void per se in Kentucky. Such agreements are enforceable, but only as to disposition of property and maintenance, and only if there was full disclosure without material omission or misrepresentation and the agreement is not unconscionable at the time enforcement is sought; if unconscionable, the trial court may modify the agreement to meet the necessary standard, and fraud or duress will defeat enforcement.

🔒

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 Lexington, Nina Porter and Caleb Dunn signed a premarital agreement stating that if they later divorced, each would keep his or her premarital assets and Caleb would pay Nina $1,500 per month for three years. After eight years of marriage, Caleb argues in the divorce action that any premarital agreement triggered by divorce is automatically void because it contemplates marital breakup.

How should the court rule on Caleb's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that antenuptial agreements contemplating divorce are not automatically void. Agreements covering property disposition and maintenance may be enforced, subject to safeguards such as full disclosure, absence of fraud or duress, and lack of unconscionability at the time enforcement is sought. (Derived from Edwardson v. Edwardson (n.d.).)