Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Medina County · 2014 · Family Law

Family LawPrenuptial agreementsSpousal supportprenuptial agreementantenuptial agreementspousal support waiverunconscionability at divorcechanged circumstances

Facts

Before marrying in 1999, Barbara and Shane Vanderbilt executed a prenuptial agreement governing property division and mutually waiving spousal support in the event of divorce. Wife worked full-time for a county agency before and throughout the marriage, with steady income, no-cost health benefits, and a public pension, and she used her earnings to fund the couple's living expenses. The couple enjoyed a higher standard of living due in part to Husband's higher income, but the record indicated that this higher standard had been established before the marriage during their lengthy relationship. On remand from an earlier appeal, the trial court awarded Wife spousal support because enforcement of the waiver would return her to her prior standard of living and allegedly work a hardship.

Issue

May a court refuse to enforce a valid prenuptial spousal-support waiver based solely on the wife's higher marital lifestyle, when the record does not show changed circumstances arising during the marriage that render enforcement unconscionable at the time of divorce? More specifically, did the trial court err by setting aside the waiver without identifying the requisite changed circumstances?

Rule

In Ohio, although a valid prenuptial agreement may include spousal-support provisions, a party may avoid enforcement only by showing that those provisions are unconscionable at the time of divorce. That conscionability determination is guided by the factors in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), but the critical inquiry is whether changed circumstances arising during the marriage render enforcement unconscionable; absent such changed circumstances, declining to enforce the provision is legal error reviewed de novo.

🔒

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 Columbus, Marissa Cole and Daniel Reeves signed a valid prenuptial agreement waiving spousal support. Marissa had worked as a public-school payroll manager for three years before the wedding and kept the same job, salary track, health coverage, and pension plan throughout their twelve-year marriage. At divorce, she argues the waiver should not be enforced because Daniel's higher income allowed them to live far better than she could on her own.

How should a court most likely rule on Marissa's request for spousal support?

Explanation. The majority opinion makes changed circumstances during the marriage the critical factor in deciding whether a valid spousal-support waiver is unconscionable at divorce. Where the spouse seeking support kept the same employment and earning capacity before and during marriage and points only to a higher marital lifestyle, enforcement should continue. The inquiry concerns enforceability of the support provision at divorce, not validity of the entire agreement. (Derived from Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (n.d.).)