Thanks for printing! Don't forget to come back to Meriwether & Tharp, LLC for fresh articles!
Prenuptial agreement upheld in Georgia divorce case
The Supreme Court of Georgia recently heard an appeal of a divorce case, which highlights the security, or risk (depending on which side you are on), of entering into a prenuptial agreement in Georgia. Sides v. Sides, S11F1140 (2011). In that case, the parties began dating in 1989 and, shortly thereafter, the Wife became pregnant. Id. Due to the great disparity in assets and income between the parties, they negotiated and signed a prenuptial agreement before marrying in 1990. Id. Under the agreement, "Wife would have been entitled to substantially more resources if the parties divorced after their twenty-year anniversary, and substantially less if the parties divorced prior to their twenty year anniversary." Id. at 2. Nearly twenty years later, the Husband filed a Compliant for Divorce and Motion to Enforce the Prenuptial Agreement, which the trial court granted a mere 62 days prior to the couple's twenty year anniversary, and the Wife appealed. Id.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. The Court first laid out the factors to be considered by the trial court in deciding the validity of the prenuptial agreement: "(1) [W]as the agreement obtained through fraud, duress or mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts? (2) [I]s the agreement unconscionable?(3) Have the facts and circumstances changed since the agreement was executed, so as to make its enforcement unfair and unreasonable?" Id., quoting Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga.635, 641 (3) (1982).
In this case, both attorneys "deposed that they would not have allowed their clients to enter the agreement without full financial disclosures being made," and Wife was long aware of the "vast disparity" between their incomes. Id. at 3. Thus, the evidence supported that full financial disclosures were made prior to signing and the agreement was not unconscionable. In addition,the increase in Husband's net worth was anticipated and, therefore, it was not a "change of circumstance that would make the enforcement of the agreement unfair and unreasonable." Id. at4. The trial court, thus, did not abuse its discretion in upholding the prenuptial agreement.