Simeone v. Simeone – Prenuptial Agreement
Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162 (1990).
NATURE OF THE CASE: Catherine (W), wife, challenged the order of the Superior Court affirming the order of the lower court, which dismissed her exceptions to a master’s report upholding the validity of a prenuptial agreement and denied her claim for alimony pendente lite against her husband Frederick (H). Catherine claimed the agreement was unreasonable and that she was not informed of the nature of alimony pendente lite when she relinquished it.
FACTS: At the time of marriage to Frederick in 1975, Catherine was a 23-year-old nurse and Frederick was a 39 year old neurosurgeon. Frederick had an income of $90,000 per year and assets of $300,000. Catherine was unemployed. On the eve of the wedding, Frederick’s attorney presented Catherine with a prenuptial agreement which Catherine signed the agreement without benefit of counsel and Frederick’s lawyer did not advise Catherine in any form or capacity.
The agreement limited Catherine to support payments of $200 per week subject to a maximum total of $25,000 total. The parties lived together for 7 years and divorce proceedings commenced nine years after the marriage. For the two years that they lived separate and apart during their separation, Frederick satisfied the $25,000 limit. Catherine then filed a claim in 1985 for alimony pendente lite. The prenuptial agreement was affirmed and the claim for alimony, maintenance and support was denied. Catherine appealed.
ISSUE: Are prenuptial agreements contracts such that they should be evaluated under the same criteria as are applicable to other types of contracts? Is a prenuptial agreement void if the signing party did not understand its terms or did not consult an attorney? (See others rules below).
RULE OF LAW: Prenuptial agreements are contracts such that they should be evaluated under the same criteria as are applicable to other types of contracts. A prenuptial agreement is not void if the signing party did not understand its terms or did not consult an attorney.
Geyer expressly applied and followed the rule in Hillegass Estate which held that a prenuptial agreement will be upheld if it either made a reasonable provision for the spouse or was entered after a full and fair disclosure of financial status. There is no longer validity in the implicit presumption that spouses are of unequal status and that women are not knowledgeable enough to understand the nature of contracts that they enter. Women are no longer regarded as the ‘weaker’ party in marriage and the stereotype that women serve as homemakers while men work as breadwinners is no longer viable. Quite often today both spouses are income earners.
Paternalistic presumptions and protections that arose to shelter women from the inferiorities and incapacities which they were perceived as having in earlier times have been discarded. Traditional principles of contract law provide perfectly adequate remedies where contracts are procured through fraud, misrepresentation, or duress. Consideration of other factors including the knowledge of the parties and the reasonableness of their bargain is inappropriate. Absent fraud, misrepresentation or duress spouses should be bound by the terms of their prenuptial contracts.
Prenuptial agreements are marriage contracts and should be evaluated under the same criteria as other types of contracts. Contracting parties are normally bound by their agreements without regard to whether the terms were read and fully understood and irrespective of whether the agreements embodied reasonable or good bargains. The reasonableness of a prenuptial bargain is not a proper subject for judicial review. Everyone who enters a long-term agreement knows that circumstances can change during its term, and what initially appeared desirable might prove to be an unfavorable bargain.
A full and fair disclosure of the financial positions of the parties is required, otherwise a material misrepresentation in the inducement for entering a prenuptial agreement may be asserted. Disclosure need not be exact, so long as it is full and fair. If an agreement provides that full disclosure has been made, a presumption of full disclosure arises. If a spouse attempts to rebut this presumption through an assertion of fraud or misrepresentation then this presumption can be rebutted if it is proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The terms of the present prenuptial agreement should be binding without regard to whether the terms were fully understood by Catherine. The fact that Catherine did not consult with independent legal counsel is of no consequence. The present agreement recited that full disclosure had been made, and included a list of Frederick ’s assets.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Concurring: I cannot agree that all vestiges of inequality have been removed between men and women. I view these contracts, as contracts of adhesion with the law protecting the weaker party be they man or woman.
Dissenting: At the time of dissolution of the marriage, a spouse should be able to avoid the operation of a pre-nuptial agreement upon clear and convincing proof that, despite the existence of full and fair disclosure at the time of the execution of the agreement, the agreement is nevertheless so inequitable and unfair that it should not be enforced in a court of this state. A court should not, even in the face of full disclosure, allow a contract that is so inequitable to be enforced in this state.