Mary Texas Garner Robinson v. John Lawson Robinson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/10/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090682 Mary Texas Garner Robinson v. John Lawson Robinson Appeal from Jackson C i r c u i t (DR-08-148) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Mary Texas Garner R o b i n s o n judgment of t h e Jackson antenuptial agreement into ("the w i f e " ) Circuit which Court appeals holding she had e n t e r e d from a invalid with a John 2090682 Lawson R o b i n s o n ("the h u s b a n d " ) . h e r e i n , we reverse the t r i a l For the reasons s e t f o r t h court's judgment. The h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e became e n g a g e d i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1987. I t i s undisputed t h a t , a t the time of the parties' engagement, t h e w i f e ' s f a m i l y owned a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f real property. During t h e summer o f 1 9 8 7 , t h e w i f e Bill attorney W h i t e , an who had employed p r e v i o u s l y p e r f o r m e d some l e g a l work f o r t h e w i f e and t h e w i f e ' s f a m i l y , t o p r e p a r e antenuptial execute. agreement On addition 26, 1987, the the husband. In t o p r o v i d i n g t h a t the husband would r e l i n q u i s h any t o t h e w i f e , who White f o r the p a r t i e s to of agreement August ("the a g r e e m e n t " ) an shared sent i t with a draft c l a i m t o c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y t h e w i f e owned o r s t o o d t o i n h e r i t , the agreement provided that the husband acknowledged that White represented o n l y t h e w i f e and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d t h e right h i s own to interests thereafter employ with regard began and he to counsel represent agreement. The a handwritten draft The h a n d w r i t t e n incorporated to the preparing a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. White, legal i t into agreement. 2 his husband of an d r a f t was p r o v i d e d t o his final draft of the 2090682 The p a r t i e s executed September 9, 1987, three the f i n a l d r a f t of the agreement days p e r t i n e n t p a r t , the agreement before their wedding. provided: "1. T h i s Agreement is entered into in c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e , and i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s e x p r e s s l y c o n d i t i o n e d on s u c h m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s a c t u a l l y t a k i n g p l a c e ; and i f , for any reason, the marriage i s not consummated, this A g r e e m e n t w i l l be o f no f o r c e o r e f f e c t . "2. A f u l l and complete d i s c l o s u r e of a l l p r o p e r t y owned b y e a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s , b o t h rreeaall and rt p e r s o n a l , t a n g i b l e and i n t a n g i b l e , has b e e n made t o mad each o t h e r . I t i s s t i p u l a t e d and a g r e e d by and between the p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t the [ w i f e ] i s , a t the time of the e x e c u t i o n of t h i s Agreement, the owner o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y and i t i s f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e d and a g r e e d by and b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t t h e [ h u s b a n d ] does n o t own o r have an i n t e r e s t i n any o f s a i d p r o p e r t y , w h i c h p r o p e r t y i s more p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : "A. A one-fourth (1/4) undivided i n t e r e s t i n and t o t h e f o l l o w i n g t r a c t s o r p a r c e l s of r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n Jackson County, Alabama, t o w i t : [Paragraphs 2.A.(a)-(f) describe six p a r c e l s of r e a l p r o p e r t y c o n t a i n i n g s e v e r a l hundred acres of l a n d . ] "B. Shares of the c a p i t a l s t o c k of C o l o n i a l Bank, S o u t h t r u s t C o r p o r a t i o n and C e n t r a l Bank. "C. F u n d s h e l d i n C e r t i f i c a t e s D e p o s i t i s s u e d by C i t y F e d e r a l S a v i n g s New J e r s e y , and any a c c u m u l a t i o n s to reinvestments of such funds. 3 of of or on In 2090682 "D. Any vested or contingent i n t e r e s t s h e l d o r a c q u i r e d b y v i r t u e o f any T r u s t I n d e n t u r e s e x e c u t e d or e s t a b l i s h e d by Mary T e x a s H u r t G a r n e r , t h e m o t h e r o f t h e [wife]. " I t i s f u r t h e r , s t i p u l a t e d and agreed by b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t t h e [husband] i the time o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h i s Agreement, owner o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y a n d i f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e d and a g r e e d by and between p a r t i e s t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] does n o t own o r have i n t e r e s t i n the f o l l o w i n g described property: "E. One (1) a c r e more o r l e s s known as L o t #9 l o c a t e d i n t h e K i d d - B a g w e l l S u b d i v i s i o n b e i n g i n S e c t i o n 21, Township 8, Range 7, D e K a l b C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . "F. One (1) a c r e more o r l e s s known as L o t #10 l o c a t e d i n t h e K i d d - B a g w e l l S u b d i v i s i o n b e i n g i n S e c t i o n 21, Township 8, Range 7, D e K a l b C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . "G. One (1) a c r e more o r l e s s known as L o t #11 l o c a t e d i n t h e K i d d - B a g w e l l S u b d i v i s i o n b e i n g i n S e c t i o n 21, Township 8, Range 7, D e K a l b C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . "H. An undivided one-third (1/3) i n t e r e s t i n t h e [husband]'s f a m i l y farm [on] w h i c h he grew up. This farm i s l o c a t e d [ i n ] Dawson, A l a b a m a 35963, D e K a l b County, Alabama. (A l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n i s not a v a i l a b l e a t t h e time o f t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h i s Agreement; however, i t s l o c a t i o n i s known b y b o t h p a r t i e s t o t h i s Agreement.) " I . A one (1) a c r e l o t known as L o t #6 l o c a t e d i n T a - C o - B e t C l i f f s S u b d i v i s i o n , 4 and s at the t is the any 2090682 S e c t i o n 3 1 , T o w n s h i p 5, Range 7E, County, Alabama. Jackson " J . A gun c o l l e c t i o n w h i c h i n c l u d e s r i f l e s , shotguns, and p i s t o l s c o n s i d e r e d t o be w o r t h s e v e r a l t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s . " 3 . The [ w i f e ] h a s , f u r t h e r , made a f u l l a n d c o m p l e t e d i s c l o s u r e t o [ t h e husband] o f t h e n a t u r e , e x t e n t , and p r o b a b l e v a l u e o f a l l p r o p e r t y and o t h e r a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g contingent, l i m i t e d or remainder i n t e r e s t s i n same, w h i c h she may i n t h e f u t u r e acquire by g i f t , bequest, devise, inheritance, p u r c h a s e , o r o p e r a t i o n o f law from h e r mother, Mary Texas H u r t G a r n e r ; h e r b r o t h e r , William Texas Garner; her uncle, John F r a n k H u r t , and o t h e r a n c e s t o r s , o r f r o m any t r u s t s e s t a b l i s h e d o r t o be e s t a b l i s h e d by such persons. Although such p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s a r e , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h i s Agreement, e x p e c t a n c i e s and n o t n e c e s s a r i l y v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s , i t i s t h e i n t e n t i o n and purpose o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t s u c h e x p e c t a n c i e s be t r e a t e d i n all respects under this Agreement as vested i n t e r e s t s i n t h e [ w i f e ] , and t h a t any s u c h p r o p e r t y o r i n t e r e s t s , when l a t e r v e s t e d , be deemed t h e s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y and e s t a t e o f t h e [ w i f e ] , and t h e [husband] does h e r e b y w a i v e a n d r e l e a s e a l l p r e s e n t or f u t u r e r i g h t s , c l a i m s , t i t l e , and i n t e r e s t , i n law a n d e q u i t y w h i c h he m i g h t , b y r e a s o n o f h i s marriage t o [the w i f e ] , a c q u i r e i n o r t o such p r o p e r t y , a s s e t s and e x p e c t a n c i e s . "4. E x c e p t as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , t h e [husband] does h e r e b y c o v e n a n t a n d a g r e e w i t h t h e [ w i f e ] t h a t he w i l l n e i t h e r d u r i n g t h e l i f e t i m e o f t h e [ w i f e ] n o r a f t e r h e r d e a t h t a k e , c l a i m , demand o r r e c e i v e , and does h e r e b y w a i v e a n d r e l e a s e a l l r i g h t s , c l a i m s , t i t l e s and i n t e r e s t , a c t u a l , i n c h o a t e , o r c o n t i n g e n t , i n l a w a n d e q u i t y w h i c h he m i g h t , b y reason of h i s marriage t o [the w i f e ] , acquire i n or to the above-described p r o p e r t y or e s t a t e of [the w i f e ] , i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o : 5 2090682 "A. The r i g h t o r c l a i m o f h o m e s t e a d , dower or curtesy, or any statutory s u b s t i t u t e t h e r e f o r , as p r o v i d e d by the s t a t u t e s of the s t a t e i n which the [ w i f e ] d i e s d o m i c i l e d o r i n w h i c h she may own r e a l property; "B. The right to any exemptions, alimony, support or statutory allowance; "C. The r i g h t of e l e c t i o n to take a g a i n s t t h e L a s t W i l l and T e s t a m e n t o f t h e [wife]; "D. The right to a statutory d i s t r i b u t i v e share i n the e s t a t e of [ w i f e ] s h o u l d she d i e i n t e s t a t e . or the "Such w a i v e r and r e l e a s e by t h e [husband] a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t e d to r i g h t s , claims, t i t l e , or interest in and to the property and estate identified in paragraph 2(A) through 2(D), i n c l u s i v e , and t h e e x p e c t a n c i e s as d e s c r i b e d in p a r a g r a p h 3 h e r e i n a b o v e and s h a l l n o t c o n s t i t u t e a w a i v e r o r r e l e a s e by t h e [husband] o f any right, claim, t i t l e , o r i n t e r e s t i n any o t h e r property a c q u i r e d by e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o . " E x c e p t as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , the [ w i f e ] does h e r e b y c o v e n a n t and a g r e e w i t h t h e [husband] t h a t she will neither during the lifetime of the [husband] n o r a f t e r h i s d e a t h t a k e , c l a i m , demand, o r r e c e i v e , and does h e r e b y w a i v e and r e l e a s e a l l rights, claims, titles and interest, actual, i n c h o a t e , o r c o n t i n g e n t , i n l a w and e q u i t y w h i c h she m i g h t , by r e a s o n o f h e r m a r r i a g e t o [ t h e h u s b a n d ] , a c q u i r e i n or to the a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y or e s t a t e of [the husband], i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d to: 6 2090682 "A. The r i g h t o r c l a i m o f h o m e s t e a d , dower, or curtesy, or any statutory s u b s t i t u t e t h e r e f o r , as p r o v i d e d by the statutes of the state in which the [husband] d i e s d o m i c i l e d o r i n w h i c h he may own r e a l p r o p e r t y ; "B. The right to any exemptions, alimony, support, or statutory allowance; "C. The r i g h t of e l e c t i o n to take a g a i n s t t h e L a s t W i l l and T e s t a m e n t o f t h e [husband]; "D. The right to a statutory d i s t r i b u t i v e share i n the e s t a t e of [husband] s h o u l d he d i e i n t e s t a t e . or the "Such w a i v e r and r e l e a s e by t h e [wife] are s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t e d to r i g h t s , claims, t i t l e or interest in and to the property and estate identified in paragraph 2(E) through 2(J), i n c l u s i v e , and s h a l l n o t c o n s t i t u t e a w a i v e r o r r e l e a s e by t h e [ w i f e ] o f any r i g h t , c l a i m , t i t l e , o r i n t e r e s t i n any o t h e r p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d by e i t h e r o f the p a r t i e s h e r e t o . " "8. A n y t h i n g hereinabove to the contrary notwithstanding, i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a g r e e d by and b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t t h e [husband] s h a l l , i f he i s t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e o f t h e [ w i f e ] , have t h e r i g h t t o use and p o s s e s s d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e , f r e e f r o m t h e payment o f r e n t o r o t h e r c h a r g e s , any d w e l l i n g house i n w h i c h the p a r t i e s h e r e t o most u s u a l l y r e s i d e d next before the death of the [wife] and, i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o , t h e r i g h t t o use and p o s s e s s up t o two ( 2 ) a c r e s o f r e a l e s t a t e a d j o i n i n g t h e same, i f t h e same i s owned by t h e p a r t i e s o r e i t h e r o f them. 7 2090682 "It i s f u r t h e r understood, stipulated, and a g r e e d by and b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t [ t h e husband] i s , a t the t i m e of the e x e c u t i o n of t h i s Agreement, the owner of and brings into the forthcoming marriage a family dwelling home described as follows: [ d e s c r i p t i o n of one-acre p a r c e l of p r o p e r t y o m i t t e d ] . Anything hereinabove to the c o n t r a r y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a g r e e d by and b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] s h a l l , i f she i s t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e o f t h e [ h u s b a n d ] , have t h e r i g h t o r c l a i m o f h o m e s t e a d , dower, o r any s t a t u t o r y s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r w i t h r e s p e c t to such p r o p e r t y or e s t a t e . "9. E a c h o f the p a r t i e s h e r e t o do hereby a c k n o w l e d g e and c o n f i r m t h a t [ t h e w i f e ] has e m p l o y e d J . W i l l i a m W h i t e , an A t t o r n e y a t Law p r a c t i c i n g i n S c o t t s b o r o , J a c k s o n County, Alabama, t o represent her i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n and p r e p a r a t i o n of this A g r e e m e n t and b o t h p a r t i e s a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t s a i d a t t o r n e y does n o t and c a n n o t r e p r e s e n t o r s e r v e as t h e a t t o r n e y f o r b o t h p a r t i e s in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. The [husband] a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t he u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t [White] r e p r e s e n t s o n l y the [wife] and t h a t he f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t he has the r i g h t t o employ c o u n s e l o f h i s own choosing to represent his interest herein and further u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t i t may be i n h i s b e s t i n t e r e s t t o do s o . H a v i n g been a d v i s e d of the f o r e g o i n g and h a v i n g f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h e same, t h e [husband] a c k n o w l e d g e s and confirms that he has freely, v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h f u l l k n o w l e d g e e x e c u t e d t h i s A g r e e m e n t and has v o l u n t a r i l y and k n o w i n g l y e l e c t e d not t o employ i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t and to protect h i s i n t e r e s t herein." The p a r t i e s m a r r i e d on S e p t e m b e r 12, was born of t h e i r marriage. the time of the h e a r i n g 1987, T h a t c h i l d was in this 8 case. 20 and one child years o l d at 2090682 On A p r i l 14, 2008, t h e w i f e f i l e d an a c t i o n f o r a d i v o r c e from the husband. I n her complaint, she a l l e g e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t , and she a s k e d t h e c o u r t find [that] the [agreement] of the parties o p e r a t i v e between the p a r t i e s , " t o e n f o r c e to d i v i d e the p a r t i e s ' remaining to the agreement. The t o " d e t e r m i n e and i s valid and t h e a g r e e m e n t , and p r o p e r t y t h a t was n o t s u b j e c t husband f i l e d an answer i n w h i c h he a d m i t t e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t b u t d e n i e d t h a t i t was valid. the He also f i l e d a counterclaim seeking a divorce from wife. The w i f e filed a motion f o r the court v a l i d i t y o f the agreement. that m o t i o n on November tenus At 5, The t r i a l 2009, to determine the court held a hearing at which i t received on ore evidence. the hearing, W h i t e , t h e a t t o r n e y who had d r a f t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was f r i e n d s w i t h t h e h u s b a n d and the w i f e . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t some p o i n t b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s h a d e x e c u t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t , he h a d h a d a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e h u s b a n d i n w h i c h he h a d i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t he was the w i f e w i t h represent regard representing t o t h e a g r e e m e n t and t h a t he c o u l d n o t the husband w i t h the r e g a r d 9 t o the agreement. 2090682 White t e s t i f i e d t h a t , before of the antenuptial document that husband. He document into agreement, he p r e p a r e d t h e f i n a l d r a f t he received he u n d e r s t o o d t o have testified the that final he draft been a prepared incorporated of handwritten the some of agreement. h a n d w r i t t e n document s e t o u t c e r t a i n p a r c e l s o f r e a l owned by personal estate t h e husband, property, as w e l l as some by the of the that The property husband's t h a t were t o be e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e m a r i t a l and t o w h i c h t h e w i f e would waive any and a l l r i g h t s . White t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i n c l u d e d t h a t p r o v i s i o n i n t h e f i n a l d r a f t of the agreement. White t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l t h e husband ever s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was u n f a i r , n o r d i d he r e c a l l t h e husband ever l e g a l counsel s t a t i n g that before he n e e d e d to consult s i g n i n g the agreement. with White other testified t h a t he a l s o d i d n o t r e c a l l a n y c o m p l a i n t s b y t h e h u s b a n d t h a t he h a d been c o e r c e d o r f o r c e d t o s i g n t h e a g r e e m e n t . The managing wife testified her family's that she w o r k e d real-estate with holdings. her She t h a t she h a d i n h e r i t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f r e a l from h e r mother and h e r u n c l e . 10 brother testified property 2090682 The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e t h e h u s b a n d and she became e n g a g e d , he was a l a w - s c h o o l with the Jackson County d i s t r i c t attorney's The w i f e discussed stated that, before why family. she employed office. t h e i r marriage, the p a r t i e s t h e f a c t t h a t h e r f a m i l y owned a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of r e a l p r o p e r t y the g r a d u a t e and was She s t a t e d t h a t , i n d i s c u s s i n g w i t h wanted important and t h a t i t was owned b y v a r i o u s the agreement, t o h e r and she told to her f a m i l y that estate stay w i t h i n her f a m i l y . him members o f the husband that i t was the family's real She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e h u s b a n d s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e y became e n g a g e d and t h a t he t o l d h e r t h a t she should have t h e a g r e e m e n t p r e p a r e d i n t h e manner she w a n t e d and t h a t he d i d n o t have a n y t h i n g t h a t she p r o v i d e d t o a d d t o i t . The w i f e testified t h e A u g u s t 26, 1987, d r a f t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t t o t h e h u s b a n d and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d c h a n g e d h i s m i n d a t t h a t time and d e c i d e d that t h e h u s b a n d ' s h a n d w r i t t e n document was what he h a d t o l d encouraged him t o add some i t e m s t o i t . The w i f e h e r he w a n t e d t o d o . to seek legal advice She with a g r e e m e n t b u t t h a t he c h o s e n o t t o do s o . 11 stated consistent stated regard The w i f e with that she to the testified 2090682 t h a t t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t make a n y s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e f a i r n e s s o r u n f a i r n e s s o f t h e argument t o h e r b e f o r e complaint f o r divorce her the f i l i n g of the i n t h i s a c t i o n a n d t h a t he n e v e r told t h a t he was n o t g o i n g t o s i g n i t . The wife stated that, before the p a r t i e s signed the agreement, she had d i s c u s s e d w i t h t h e husband t h e i n h e r i t a n c e t h a t she a n t i c i p a t e d r e c e i v i n g from her f a m i l y . She s t a t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was aware t h a t h e r f a m i l y owned a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f r e a l property some o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e h u s b a n d h a d h u n t e d on h e r f a m i l y owned. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t r e c a l l d i s c u s s i n g t h e value o f h e r bank s t o c k w i t h t h e h u s b a n d . she d i d not p r o v i d e stock but that information. conversation She t e s t i f i e d t h a t any documents t o h i m r e l a t i v e t o t h e bank she d i d not r e c a l l h i s asking f o r any s u c h She i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t r e c a l l a s p e c i f i c in which c e r t i f i c a t e s of deposit she told him the or of t h e i r e x i s t e n c e . value of her She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t know w h e t h e r t h e h u s b a n d knew t h a t t h e r e was a w r i t t e n t r u s t agreement between h e r mother and h e r p r o v i d i n g t h a t s h e w o u l d manage h e r m o t h e r ' s p r o p e r t i e s f o r h e r , b u t s h e stated that he knew that she 12 was managing her mother's 2090682 properties. The w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she b e l i e v e d t h e h u s b a n d was aware o f how much r e a l p r o p e r t y h e r f a m i l y o w n e d , a l t h o u g h she i n d i c a t e d t h a t she h a d n e v e r t o l d h i m t h e m o n e t a r y of each p r o p e r t y . She i d e a " at the time testified that she h a d a " v e r y the p a r t i e s married i n h e r i t i n g at her mother's death. value good o f what she w o u l d be She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was compensated under t h e t r u s t agreement w i t h h e r mother b u t t h a t she d i d n o t g i v e income. the husband s p e c i f i c She t e s t i f i e d tax returns or other information about her t h a t the p a r t i e s d i d not exchange financial statements before any s i g n i n g the agreement. The district husband t e s t i f i e d attorney's t h a t he h a d begun office l a t e r as a c o u r t c o o r d i n a t o r . i n 1975 as from law s c h o o l , working i n the d i s t r i c t attorney's time of the h e a r i n g , he was i n v e s t i g a t o r and He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he g r a d u a t e d f r o m l a w s c h o o l i n 1984; a f t e r g r a d u a t i n g continued an working i n the office. he At the a member o f t h e A l a b a m a House o f Representatives. The husband engagement, although he he testified that, during d i d n o t know what p r o p e r t y stated that he knew 13 that her the the wife family parties' owned, owned a 2090682 s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f l a n d . He s t a t e d t h a t he v i s i t e d o n l y a couple of the p a r c e l s of property t h a t h e r f a m i l y owned. t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n d t h e w i f e h a d n e v e r d i s c u s s e d and n a t u r e of her r e a l property, bank a c c o u n t s , o r h e r cash. understanding wife's before her personal extent property, her He s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t have an their m a r r i a g e as t o t h e w i f e ' s or the that read f a m i l y ' s net worth. The husband testified copy o f t h e August 26, w h i c h he h a d h a n d w r i t t e n 1987, he had draft received document was He document a few d a y s and that he that before handwritten t o be u s e d by W h i t e t o p r e p a r e t h e o f t h e agreement handwritten after He t e s t i f i e d s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t know h i s going a t h e document t h a t W h i t e h a d u s e d i n he h a d p r e p a r e d t h a t h a n d w r i t t e n the wedding. and o f the agreement, p r e p a r i n g the f i n a l d r a f t o f the agreement. draft the He d i d not give White final the document. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d W h i t e h a d t o l d h i m he could not represent him at the time he signed the a g r e e m e n t ; however, he s t a t e d t h a t he knew f r o m t h e A u g u s t 26, 1987, d r a f t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t him. t h a t W h i t e was not representing He s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t c o n s u l t w i t h anyone a b o u t t h e 14 2090682 agreement. He a d m i t t e d t h a t he c o u l d have t a l k e d t o a l a w y e r about t h e agreement doing so. because He he antenuptial and t h a t testified was that ashamed no one he d i d n o t s e e k that agreement. He had p r e v e n t e d him from he was admitted representation entering that he into signed an the a g r e e m e n t and t h a t no one h a d f o r c e d h i m t o s i g n i t . The first husband testified broached the subject that i t u p s e t h i m when t h e o f an a n t e n u p t i a l agreement. wife He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i n f o r m e d t h e w i f e t h a t he w o u l d n o t s i g n an antenuptial that the agreement and that she r e s p o n d e d by t h e i r wedding would not take p l a c e . s u b j e c t was n o t r a i s e d a g a i n parties' marriage. He stated until He indicating testified that a few d a y s b e f o r e that, as the date of the the m a r r i a g e n e a r e d , t h e w i f e i n d i c a t e d t o h i m t h a t h e r m o t h e r was p r e s s u r i n g h e r t o have h i m s i g n an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t . husband testified invitations wife's he signed t h e agreement f o r the wedding had a l r e a d y mother marriage o f f . " that that was "real According upset and was because the been m a i l e d and t h e to call the t o the husband, the w i f e told him t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t was going The t o appease t h e wife's m o t h e r and t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t " w o u l d n o t be u s e d a g a i n s t " h i m . 15 2090682 On M a r c h 18, 2010, t h e t r i a l which i t concluded that pertinent part, the court court t h e agreement entered was an o r d e r i n invalid. wrote: " 1 . The A n t e n u p t i a l A g r e e m e n t l a c k e d a d e q u a t e consideration and c o n s i d e r i n g the t o t a l i t y of c i r c u m s t a n c e s and f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e A n t e n u p t i a l Agreement i t i s b a s i c a l l y u n f a i r and i n e q u i t a b l e t o t h e H u s b a n d a n d i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e means o f the Wife. "2. That Agreement r e q u i r e d t h e Husband t o r e l i n q u i s h any r i g h t s t h a t he m i g h t have t o t h e W i f e ' s e s t a t e , however, t h e Agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t s h o u l d t h e W i f e s u r v i v e t h e H u s b a n d , she w o u l d have the right to claim homestead, dower, o r any statutory s u b s t i t u t e with respect to the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l home. " 3 . The A g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e H u s b a n d a n d W i f e d i s c l o s e a l l t h e p r o p e r t y owned b y e a c h p a r t y , b o t h r e a l , p e r s o n a l , t a n g i b l e , and i n t a n g i b l e . I t f u r t h e r r e q u i r e d the Wife t o d i s c l o s e the nature, e x t e n t , a n d p r o b a b l e v a l u e o f a l l p r o p e r t y t h a t she may i n t h e f u t u r e a c q u i r e b y g i f t , b e q u e s t , d e v i s e , i n h e r i t , p u r c h a s e from b o t h h e r mother, Mary Texas Hurt Garner or her uncle, John Frank Garner. "4. The e v i d e n c e i s c l e a r l y c o n t r a r y t o t h e above a n d t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no e v i d e n c e that sufficient i n f o r m a t i o n was c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the agreement o r a t t a c h e d t o t h e agreement t h a t s e t f o r t h t h e n a t u r e , e x t e n t and p r o b a b l e v a l u e o f t h e s e a s s e t s as s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e d by t h e Agreement. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e H u s b a n d and t h e W i f e , a s t o any d i s c u s s i o n s as t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e A g r e e m e n t , were n o t o f s u b s t a n c e , led to quarrels o r arguments, and l e d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i f t h e Husband f a i l e d t o s i g n t h e a g r e e m e n t i f t h e r e was t o be a m a r r i a g e [ s i c ] . 16 In 2090682 A l t h o u g h t h e r e was t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e Husband h a d h u n t e d on some o f t h e f a m i l y p r o p e r t y a n d may have b e e n on a n o t h e r p o r t i o n o f the Wife's family property during t h e i r c o u r t s h i p , the Court i s of the opinion that t h i s information i s not s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Husband h a d a g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e W i f e ' s e s t a t e a n d knew t h e e x t e n t of the Wife's s u b s t a n t i a l e s t a t e . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h e Husband was n o t a d e q u a t e l y a d v i s e d o f t h e W i f e ' s a s s e t s and t h e n a t u r e , e x t e n t , and p r o b a b l e v a l u e o f a l l p r o p e r t y a n d o t h e r a s s e t s p r i o r t o o r a t t h e t i m e he s i g n e d t h e A n t e n u p t i a l A g r e e m e n t a n d t h a t he h a d i n s u f f i c i e n t g e n e r a l knowledge o f t h e e x t e n t o f t h e Wife's a s s e t s i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e r i g h t s o r i n t e r e s t s he was w a i v i n g when s i g n i n g t h e A n t e n u p t i a l A g r e e m e n t . "5. The C o u r t f i n d s a n d t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h a t t h e A n t e n u p t i a l A g r e e m e n t was n o t e n t e r e d i n t o freely and v o l u n t a r i l y by the Husband, with competent independent a d v i c e . "6. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e Husband d i d n o t have c o m p e t e n t i n d e p e n d e n t a d v i c e . The A g r e e m e n t i n this case was p r e p a r e d by t h e W i f e ' s family a t t o r n e y , John White. The W i f e h a d a p r o f e s s i o n a l and c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p [ w i t h ] t h e W h i t e s . The W i f e s e r v e d as t h e g o d m o t h e r t o t h e i r c h i l d a n d w o r k e d f o r Mr. W h i t e p r i o r t o a n d a f t e r t h e s i g n i n g o f t h e Agreement. The t e s t i m o n y was c o n f l i c t i n g as t o w h e t h e r t h e Husband was e v e r i n s t r u c t e d t o o b t a i n the advice of counsel p r i o r to signing the Agreement. "7. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l y t i e d to the requirement that the a g r e e m e n t was f r e e l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d i n t o and b a s e d upon t h e Husband's l a c k o f i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l t h e C o u r t c a n n o t f i n d n o r does t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e e n t i r e A g r e e m e n t was j u s t a n d e q u i t a b l e . 17 2090682 "8. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s and f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e A n t e n u p t i a l A g r e e m e n t i t i s b a s i c a l l y u n f a i r a n d i n e q u i t a b l e t o t h e Husband and i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e means o f t h e W i f e . " On A p r i l 15, 2010, the t r i a l c o u r t made i t s M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a R. C i v . P., f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e agreement "significantly impacts divisions a l i m o n y upon f i n a l h e a r i n g . " The the standard trial Because the t r i a l evidence, correct, we will a n d we judgment court's will App. to App. the decision that appeals. i s required to case i s well review settled. i s based on o r e t e n u s i t s factual findings are n o t s e t t h e judgment they a n d awards o f based on those a r e p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong o r See T y l e r v. T y l e r , 990 So. 2d 423, 428 ( A l a . 2008). the t r i a l however. court i n this presume findings aside unless unjust. The w i f e by which t h i s court's of property We do n o t e x t e n d t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o the f a c t s , See H i n d s v . H i n d s , 2003). Civ. 887 So. 2d 267, 271 ( A l a . C i v . I n s t e a d , we r e v i e w a t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s de novo. Citizens Caring See Town o f C e d a r B l u f f v. f o r C h i l d r e n , 904 So. 2d 1253, 1255-56 ( A l a . 2004). 18 2090682 "It is enforceable courts are settled i n Alabama." that antenuptial T y l e r , 990 So. agreements 2d a t 426. are "However, s c r u t i n i z e such agreements t o determine whether j u s t and 749, 751 reasonable." (Ala. described the antenuptial an well Civ. test Barnhill App. to 1980) . be spouse s e e k i n g agreement Barnhill, In applied agreement i s put antenuptial v. Barnhill, when in issue. is valid enforcement of the the So. this validity T h e r e , we and 386 they court of wrote enforceable 2d an that i f the agreement d e m o n s t r a t e s " t h a t t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n was a d e q u a t e and t h a t t h e e n t i r e t r a n s a c t i o n was f a i r , j u s t and e q u i t a b l e f r o m the [ o t h e r spouse]'s p o i n t of view or t h a t the a g r e e m e n t was f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d i n t o by the [ o t h e r s p o u s e ] w i t h competent independent a d v i c e and f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f [ h i s o r ] h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e e s t a t e and i t s a p p r o x i m a t e v a l u e . " Barnhill, either 386 So. of [ t h o s e ] 2d at 751. tests i s sufficient antenuptial agreement." 1347, (Ala. 1349 Walters, 580 So. "Meeting Civ. 2d Woolwine App. 1350, v. 1987). 1351 the to requirements give e f f e c t to requirement."). 19 an Woolwine, 519 So. 2d See also Walters v. App. 1990) (Ala. Civ. r e i t e r a t e t h a t the t e s t i n B a r n h i l l i s p h r a s e d i n terms of 'either-or' of ("We an 2090682 The wife contends t h a t the t r i a l court erred when i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o s u p p o r t the agreement. as She p o i n t s o u t t h a t m a r r i a g e i t s e l f consideration parties' mutual estate. We f o r an antenuptial relinquishment of rights as i n each can the other's agree. I n W o o l w i n e v. W o o l w i n e , s u p r a , marriage served agreement agreement, can s e r v e at judgment, t h i s t h i s court concluded that as a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e a n t e n u p t i a l issue there. Reversing the trial court's court wrote: " M a r r i a g e may, u n d e r a p p r o p r i a t e circumstances, be sufficient consideration f o r an antenuptial agreement. B a r n h i l l , 386 So. 2d 749. In t h i s instance marriage was clearly part of the consideration f o r executing t h i s agreement. The h u s b a n d was adamant i n demanding t h a t t h e w i f e s i g n an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t b e f o r e he w o u l d m a r r y h e r . As s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e w i f e was aware t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r h e r t o s i g n the agreement i n o r d e r t o marry the husband. T h e r e f o r e , i t c a n be c o n c l u d e d that the marriage itself was sufficient c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o s u p p o r t the a n t e n u p t i a l agreement." 519 So. 2d a t 1349-50. (reversing trial court's See a l s o W a l t e r s , judgment 580 So. 2d a t 1351 and h o l d i n g that marriage c o n s t i t u t e d adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r a n t e n u p t i a l agreement). In Barnhill, this court concluded m a r r i a g e and t h e h u s b a n d ' s r e l i n q u i s h m e n t 20 that the parties' o f any c l a i m he may 2090682 have t o t h e w i f e ' s e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t e d s u f f i c i e n t consideration t o s u p p o r t an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e w i f e was to avoid. Specifically relinquishment h u s b a n d by right So. signing the 386 So. 2d 1230, to the husband's be 1234 "[T]he [ a n t e n u p t i a l ] a g r e e m e n t gave up classified This relinquishment Barnhill, regard of the w i f e ' s e s t a t e , t h i s c o u r t wrote: i n what c o u l d estate. with seeking was 2d a t 751. ... See ( A l a . C i v . App. t h e i r mutual relinquishment as the wife's valuable any substantial consideration." a l s o S t r a i t v. 686 ( p a r t i e s ' marriage 1996) Strait, and of r i g h t s i n each other's estate c o n s t i t u t e d adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r a n t e n u p t i a l agreement); and Tibbs v. Anderson, 580 So. 2d 1337, 1339 (Ala. 1991) (same). In the p r e s e n t case, the husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t the had t o l d him not enter t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e w o u l d be i n t o the agreement. He c a l l e d o f f i f he testified t h a t he r e q u i r e d t o m a r r y h e r and t h a t he v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d agreement. entered The agreement i t s e l f into in consideration addition, the r e l i n q u i s h any agreement of provided the provided c l a i m he o r she may 21 wife that did was not i n t o the i t was being p a r t i e s ' marriage. that each party In would have t o p a r t i c u l a r r e a l and 2090682 personal property the marriage. Based of the other t h a t e a c h owned a t t h e t i m e o f Those p r o p e r t i e s were l i s t e d i n t h e a g r e e m e n t . on the circumstances surrounding the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , as w e l l as t h e i r m u t u a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t to the other's that separate the record that the (i.e., and p e r s o n a l does n o t s u p p o r t agreement consideration. establishes real was Furthermore, the i n i t i a l conclude by that of the f i r s t t h a t adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n we court's supported we element property, the t r i a l not o f any c l a i m find finding sufficient the record Barnhill test supported the antenuptial a g r e e m e n t ) , a n d we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t found otherwise. Next, the wife contends t h a t the t r i a l court erred when i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was u n f a i r a n d i n e q u i t a b l e t o the husband. She antenuptial agreement each takes party points out that i s not based thereunder the fairness on a c o m p a r i s o n and t h a t , i n this of an o f what case, the h u s b a n d h a d a t l e a s t a g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e r i g h t s t h a t he was r e l i n q u i s h i n g u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t . I n W o o l w i n e , t h i s c o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r an antenuptial a g r e e m e n t was f a i r , j u s t , 22 and e q u i t a b l e from t h e 2090682 other of s p o u s e ' s p o i n t o f v i e w , as r e q u i r e d b y t h e s e c o n d p a r t the first Barnhill test. Finding r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, t h i s that i t was, court wrote: "As n o t e d a b o v e , n o t o n l y must t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n be a d e q u a t e , b u t t h e e n t i r e t r a n s a c t i o n must have been f a i r , j u s t , a n d e q u i t a b l e f r o m t h e w i f e ' s p o i n t of view. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y no evidence of fraud or duress i n the execution of the agreement. The a t t o r n e y who d r a f t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a d v i s e d t h e w i f e o f i t s c o n t e n t and effect and f u r t h e r advised her t o seek independent advice. " F u r t h e r , t h e e v i d e n c e i s t h a t t h e husband and w i f e had d i s c u s s e d t h e agreement p r i o r t o t h e i r m a r r i a g e and t h a t t h e w i f e v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e d t o sign. The t e s t i m o n y was t h a t t h e w i f e c h o s e n o t t o seek independent advice contrary to the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e a t t o r n e y who p r e p a r e d t h e agreement. "The e v i d e n c e i n a l l r e s p e c t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t o v o l u n t a r i l y and, f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t t h e w i f e knew what she was relinquishing when she signed the agreement. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the record i n d i c a t e s that the wife at l e a s t had a g e n e r a l knowledge o f t h e e x t e n t o f t h e husband's e s t a t e . A l l o f t h e above i n d i c a t e s t h a t there was a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n was f a i r , j u s t , a n d e q u i t a b l e . " I t would appear t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t a spouse s h o u l d n o t be a b l e t o a v o i d an a g r e e m e n t signed b e f o r e m a r r i a g e s i m p l y by showing a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between h i s o r h e r r i g h t s under t h e a g r e e m e n t a n d what m i g h t have b e e n a w a r d e d b y a c o u r t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h an a g r e e m e n t . Put a n o t h e r way, ' u n f a i r n e s s ' u n d e r t h e i n s t a n t f a c t s 23 and 2090682 does n o t r e l a t e t o t h e amount a w a r d e d t o a s p o u s e p u r s u a n t t o an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t . " 519 So. 2d a t 1350. In B a r n h i l l , this court found that the record supported a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement a t i s s u e t h e r e was f a i r , j u s t , and e q u i t a b l e f r o m t h e o p p o s i n g s p o u s e ' s p o i n t o f view. The c o u r t w r o t e : "In this instance, there i s a b s o l u t e l y no evidence of fraud or duress i n executing the agreement. The a t t o r n e y who d r a f t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t a d v i s e d t h e w i f e as t o t h e e f f e c t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t p r i o r to her s i g n i n g i t . "The w i f e h a d t h e a g r e e m e n t s e v e r a l weeks p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e and t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the w i f e sought competent independent a d v i c e p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e c o n c e r n i n g t h e agreement. "The e v i d e n c e i n a l l r e s p e c t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t o v o l u n t a r i l y ; f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t t h e w i f e knew what she was r e l i n q u i s h i n g when she s i g n e d t h e a g r e e m e n t as shown b y h e r r e l u c t a n c e i n s i g n i n g t h e agreement u n t i l t h e husband t o l d her t h a t he w o u l d n o t m a r r y h e r u n l e s s she s i g n e d an agreement. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the w i f e a t l e a s t had a g e n e r a l knowledge o f t h e e x t e n t of t h e husband's e s t a t e . A l l o f t h e above goes t o i n d i c a t e t h e a g r e e m e n t was f a i r , j u s t a n d e q u i t a b l e from the w i f e ' s p o i n t of v i e w . " Barnhill, 1351 386 So. 2d a t 752. (reversing antenuptial trial agreement See a l s o W a l t e r s , court's was fair, 24 judgment just, and and 580 So. 2d a t holding that equitable from 2090682 w i f e ' s p e r s p e c t i v e when e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t w i f e c h o s e not t o secure outside had a g e n e r a l knowledge o f t h e husband's e s t a t e ) . Addressing legal advice about agreement and w i f e t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was u n f a i r b e c a u s e o f a d i s p a r i t y i n t h e p a r t i e s ' n e t w o r t h , this court, i n a p l u r a l i t y opinion, wrote: " F i n a l l y , the t r i a l court erred i n applying the l a w on a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t s t o t h e f a c t s b e f o r e i t when i t h e l d , b a s e d upon t h e d i s p a r i t y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' n e t w o r t h s , t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l agreement was u n f a i r a n d i n e q u i t a b l e . As t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d i n W o o l w i n e , t h e f a i r n e s s o f an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i s n o t t o be j u d g e d b a s e d upon a c o m p a r i s o n o f what t h e s p o u s e t a k e s u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t w i t h what he o r she would have taken without t h e agreement. W o o l w i n e , 519 So. 2d a t 1350. Likewise, a court should not concern i t s e l f w i t h the d i s p a r i t y i n income b e t w e e n p a r t i e s t o an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t i n t h e absence o f f r a u d , duress, o r o t h e r c u l p a b l e c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s . ... T y p i c a l l y , the reason p a r t i e s enter i n t o a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t s i s b e c a u s e t h e y have v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t incomes and a s s e t s t h a t t h e y w i s h t o p r o t e c t i n t h e case of d i v o r c e or death. The v e r y i m p e t u s b e h i n d t h e c r e a t i o n o f s u c h a g r e e m e n t s s h o u l d n o t be a r e a s o n t o s e t them a s i d e as i n e q u i t a b l e . " Lemaster v. D u t t o n , 694 So. 2d 1360, 1364 record the ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). The a g r e e m e n t was p o i n t of view. in fair, just, present case and e q u i t a b l e reflects from that the t h e husband's T h e r e was a b s o l u t e l y no e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d o r 25 2090682 duress in reflects The the that execution the of the agreement, husband v o l u n t a r i l y h u s b a n d had a t t e n d e d and signed the the record agreement. and g r a d u a t e d f r o m l a w s c h o o l , t a k e n c o u r s e s i n b o t h c o n t r a c t s and agreement i s c l e a r w i t h r e s p e c t estates trusts. r i g h t s each p a r t y was not f u l l y aware o f t h e w i f e ' s e s t a t e , t h e a g r e e m e n t i t s e l f every piece of real and personal that each party other party was relinquishing a claim. the trial court not found, disclosed, a g r e e m e n t , we hold disclosed values intended the to agreement, maintain Although there that the values a contrary despite that the of the failure was of of properties separate especially property listed time of the marriage over which the owned a t t h e were The A l t h o u g h t h e h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was relinquishing. to the and having evidence, those the p a r t i e s to have over which they each ownership does that given properties indication in the as listing the not void of the those p r o p e r t i e s p u t b o t h p a r t i e s on n o t i c e o f t h e i r e x i s t e n c e and the the fact that those p r o p e r t i e s d i s s o l u t i o n of the This presented case would not be d i v i d e d at marriage. presents a i n S t r a i t v. S t r a i t , situation 686 26 So. similar 2d 1230 to the one (Ala. Civ. App. 2090682 1996) . In S t r a i t , the wife argued that she adequate knowledge of her husband's e s t a t e that their disclosed antenuptial that an agreement exhibit was l i s t i n g both p a r t i e s ' property. was d i d not and, as a invalid. attached However, to to include $45,000 $100,000. This and agreement included F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e husband had on t h e e x h i b i t c e r t a i n o f h i s p r o p e r t y , i n cash, record the e x h i b i t d i d not s p e c i f y t h a t t h e v a l u e o f t h e husband's r e a l p r o p e r t y t h e r e i n was $ 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 . result, The the have failed including f u r n i t u r e , t o o l s , and e q u i p m e n t w o r t h court held that the wife's knowledge o f the h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e was s u f f i c i e n t f o r p u r p o s e s o f u p h o l d i n g t h e antenuptial agreement: " T h i s c o u r t has h e l d t h a t when a s p o u s e has a t least a general k n o w l e d g e o f what he o r she i s r e l i n q u i s h i n g and a g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e x t e n t of the other spouse's e s t a t e , an antenuptial a g r e e m e n t b a s e d on a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s f a i r , j u s t , and e q u i t a b l e . Barnhill, supra, a t 752; W o o l w i n e , s u p r a , a t 1350. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t [ t h e w i f e ] was f a m i l i a r w i t h [ t h e h u s b a n d ] ' s a s s e t s , and t h a t , a l t h o u g h she may have n o t known o f all h i s assets, she clearly had a 'general k n o w l e d g e ' o f t h e r i g h t s she was r e l i n q u i s h i n g . Therefore, the t r i a l court p r o p e r l y held that there was no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g [ t h e w i f e ] ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t was invalid." 27 2090682 Strait, 1351 686 So. 2d a t 1234. (reversing trial See a l s o W a l t e r s , court's judgment 580 So. 2d a t that antenuptial a g r e e m e n t was i n v a l i d a n d h o l d i n g t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w i f e l i v e d w i t h t h e h u s b a n d f o r s i x months b e f o r e sufficient to confer on h e r a g e n e r a l of t h e husband's e s t a t e ) ; B a r n h i l l , that wife the had a g e n e r a l t i m e she e n t e r e d t h e y m a r r i e d was knowledge o f t h e e x t e n t 386 So. 2d a t 752 (holding knowledge o f t h e husband's e s t a t e a t into an a n t e n u p t i a l agreement w i t h him when she h a d v i s i t e d h i s home a n d some o f h i s p r o p e r t y marriage, h a d known that he owned before a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f l a n d , a n d h a d known t h a t he was i n b u s i n e s s w i t h o t h e r members i n a f a r m i n g family operation). We a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s , contradiction, that t h e husband was aware that f a m i l y p o s s e s s e d a l a r g e amount o f r e a l p r o p e r t y agreement e x c l u d e d any i n h e r i t a n c e without the wife's and t h a t t h e she m i g h t r e c e i v e of that property. That t h e w i f e d i d n o t d i s c l o s e t h e e x a c t p r o p e r t i e s she stood to inherit not d e m o n s t r a t e , as t h e t r i a l did n o t have a g e n e r a l t h a t was b e i n g and t h e v a l u e court of those p r o p e r t i e s found, that t h e husband understanding of the wife's excepted from the m a r i t a l e s t a t e . 28 does property See S t r a i t , 2090682 supra. I n d e e d , one marriage, family exactly would could hardly know, a t t h e t i m e what the various to her i n their leave dispositions at their deaths, given were s u b j e c t t o change a t any members of various of the the wife's testamentary that those d i s p o s i t i o n s The f a c t t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h e w i f e , upon t h e time. h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h , w i t h t h e r i g h t t o c l a i m h o m e s t e a d , dower, o r any s t a t u t o r y s u b s t i t u t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e house t h e h u s b a n d owned b e f o r e or t h e m a r r i a g e does n o t r e n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t u n f a i r inequitable, trial that as the t r i a l court apparently found. c o u r t , i n f o c u s i n g on t h a t p r o v i s i o n , n e g l e c t e d t h e agreement p r o v i d e d to i n w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s were r e s i d i n g a t t h e t i m e o f h e r death. Although does n o t p r o v i d e life granted a basis estate d i e , the property the r i g h t s a the wife would this entitled should the f a c t husband equal, be that, The i n any are not real qualitatively on w h i c h t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e w h o l e a g r e e m e n t , e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t , as s t a t e d above, t h e r e parties court was adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n to support stated the v a l i d i t y i n Woolwine, v a l i d i t y o f an a n t e n u p t i a l flowing between of the agreement. "unfairness" with regard As the this to the a g r e e m e n t "does n o t r e l a t e t o t h e 29 2090682 amount awarded agreement." That counsel Although not to a spouse pursuant to an 519 So. 2d a t 1350. no one told the husband the t r i a l legal case. court c o r r e c t l y independent agreement b e f o r e outside t h e agreement i n v a l i d i n t h i s does n o t r e n d e r receive legal to seek notes t h a t t h e husband d i d advice with regard he h a d become e n g a g e d . entitled t o the he e x e c u t e d i t , t h e e v i d e n c e i s c l e a r the husband had g r a d u a t e d from law s c h o o l b e f o r e was antenuptial to that t h e w i f e and The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he knew he seek legal with h i s review regard to the of the August 26, agreement, a n d he knew, 1987, o f t h e a g r e e m e n t , t h a t W h i t e was n o t r e p r e s e n t i n g draft from advice him w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a g r e e m e n t . husband p r o v i d e d f o r having The o n l y j u s t i f i c a t i o n t h e f a i l e d t o seek independent legal a d v i c e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a g r e e m e n t i s t h a t he was e m b a r r a s s e d t h a t t h e w i f e wanted him t o e n t e r in into t h e agreement. o u r v i e w , i s n o t an a d e q u a t e e x c u s e f o r h a v i n g seek l e g a l advice, This, failed to a n d i t does n o t c a u s e h i s d e c i s i o n n o t t o o b t a i n independent l e g a l advice to invalidate See [Ms. 2080989, J a n . 29, 2010] N e l s o n v. E s t a t e o f N e l s o n , So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) 30 t h e agreement. ("Sarah does n o t 2090682 a l l e g e t h a t f r a u d o r d u r e s s was the agreement or seeking legal lawyer, t h a t was that counsel. on interests."). the previously any basis choosing. of way prevented d i d not from failing f o r e g o i n g , we the noted, consideration, consult with r e l i e v e d of her to protect we that invalid the The the the a g r e e m e n t was own fair, and as the husband. Because, agreement was supported by the first t e s t set trial adequate forth court as a r e s u l t , t h e a g r e e m e n t i s due court's judgment h o l d i n g reversed, for additional and the the of just, of conclude that i s therefore trial legal conclude t h a t the evidence viewpoint i n t h i s c a s e , and, enforced. a was her B a r n h i l l f o r t h e v a l i d i t y o f an a n t e n u p t i a l a g r e e m e n t has met from A d d i t i o n a l l y , Sarah as s u c h , c a n n o t be demonstrates equitable in of 1 B a s e d on t h e record was T h u s , i f she o f h e r own h i g h l y e d u c a t e d and, contracts she i n v o l v e d i n the e x e c u t i o n in been to be agreement c a u s e i s remanded to proceedings. We n o t e t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e w i f e had a " p r o f e s s i o n a l and c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p " w i t h W h i t e and h i s w i f e . We f a i l t o see how t h e w i f e ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h W h i t e and h i s w i f e has any b e a r i n g on the v a l i d i t y of the agreement, e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h a t the h u s b a n d knew he was e n t i t l e d t o s e e k s e p a r a t e l e g a l a d v i c e b u t c h o s e n o t t o do s o . 1 31 2090682 The wife's request f o r an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 32 without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.