Mallen v. Mallen

Supreme Court of Georgia · 2005 · Family Law

Family LawPrenuptial AgreementsDivorceAlimonyprenuptial agreementantenuptial agreementScherer testfraud

Facts

The parties lived together for about four years before marrying after Wife became pregnant. Nine or ten days before the wedding, Husband asked Wife to sign a prenuptial agreement prepared by his attorney; Wife consulted an attorney, discussed the agreement with Husband and his counsel, and signed only after changes increased life insurance and modified alimony provisions. The agreement limited Wife's alimony in the event of divorce and provided that property would remain with the party who originally owned or received it, while Husband's financial disclosure showed substantial assets but not income. After 18 years of marriage and four children, Husband sought divorce and enforcement of the agreement, under which the trial court awarded Wife $2,900 per month in alimony for four years and awarded Husband the assets he brought into and accumulated during the marriage.

Issue

Was the prenuptial agreement unenforceable because it was obtained through fraud, duress, or nondisclosure of material facts, was unconscionable when executed, or had become unfair and unreasonable due to changed circumstances since execution?

Rule

Under Scherer v. Scherer, a court evaluating a prenuptial agreement considers whether (1) the agreement was obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts, (2) the agreement is unconscionable, and (3) facts and circumstances have changed since execution so as to make enforcement unfair and unreasonable. In Georgia, persons engaged to be married are not in a confidential relationship merely because of their engagement, so a party generally must exercise ordinary diligence to verify contractual terms and representations. Conditioning marriage on signing a prenuptial agreement, without more, does not constitute duress, and foreseeable growth in one spouse's wealth is not the kind of changed circumstance that makes enforcement unfair and unreasonable.

🔒

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 Savannah, Jordan Pike and Elena Torres became engaged after dating for two years. Six days before the wedding, Jordan presented a premarital agreement stating that each party would keep all property titled in that party's name and that Elena would receive only limited support if the marriage ended; Jordan told Elena the document was "just paperwork" and that he would always make sure she was comfortable, and Elena signed after reading it herself.

If Elena later seeks to invalidate the agreement on fraud grounds based solely on Jordan's statements, how should a Georgia court most likely rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, persons engaged to be married are not in a confidential relationship merely by virtue of engagement. Therefore, absent special circumstances, a party must exercise ordinary diligence to verify contractual terms. A statement that the agreement is "just paperwork" cannot support fraud where the written terms clearly reveal the limitation on divorce rights, and a promise to provide future care is not actionable fraud because it concerns future conduct.