Estate of Geyer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987 · Family Law

Family LawAntenuptial agreementsElective shareSpousal waiverantenuptial agreementprenuptial agreementelective sharespousal election

Facts

George W. Geyer and Rosalie Werner married in January 1977 after signing an antenuptial agreement in December 1976. The agreement gave Rosalie the marital residence, certain furnishings, and $20,000 if she survived him, and in return she agreed not to elect against any other part of his estate. At the time of the agreement, George's net estate was about $594,000 and Rosalie's was about $39,000, but George did not reveal the extent of his real estate holdings and misrepresented his ownership of a store interest worth about $120,000. After George died in 1982, his will tracked the agreement, but Rosalie elected to take her statutory share instead.

Issue

Did the antenuptial agreement bar the widow from exercising her statutory right to take against the will? More specifically, was the agreement enforceable where the decedent failed to make full and fair disclosure and where the agreement did not make reasonable provision for the surviving spouse?

Rule

Under Hillegass, an antenuptial agreement is presumptively valid, and the party seeking to avoid it bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the deceased spouse made neither a reasonable provision for the intended spouse nor a full and fair disclosure of worth. Disclosure need not state exact values, but it must fairly convey the general financial resources of the parties. This case further requires that, to enforce an agreement waiving the statutory right to elect against a will, full and fair disclosure must include both the parties' general financial pictures and evidence that the parties were aware of the statutory rights being relinquished.

🔒

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 Pittsburgh, Martin Cole and Elena Ruiz signed a prenuptial agreement before marrying. After Martin died, Elena sought an elective share despite the agreement, arguing only that the agreement seemed unfair because Martin had been wealthier than she was, but she produced no substantial evidence about disclosure or the adequacy of the provision when the agreement was signed.

Who is most likely to prevail on the validity of the waiver?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that an antenuptial agreement is presumptively valid. The party seeking to avoid it bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Mere wealth disparity, without proof that the deceased spouse made neither reasonable provision nor full and fair disclosure, is insufficient. Exact values are not required. (Derived from Estate of Geyer (n.d.).)