Beyor v. Beyor
158 Conn.App. 752
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Deyor v. Beyor involves enforcement of a prenuptial agreement entered August 7, 2006, four days before marriage.
- Plaintiff sought to enforce the agreement in a 2010 dissolution; defendant objected claiming unconscionability.
- Trial court found the agreement was enforceable in 2011 after weighing unconscionability at execution and enforcement.
- Disparity in income/net worth existed in 2006 and remained substantially similar in 2011; defendant had opportunity to review and was represented by counsel.
- Plaintiff disclosed Schedule E income; court rejected claims of misdisclosure under § 46b-36g(a)(3) and upheld enforcement.
- Appeal followed, with the dissolution judgment ultimately upholding enforcement of the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcement in 2011 was unconscionable under § 46b-36g(a)(2). | Beyor—unconscionable due to income/net-worth disparity. | Pavano Beyor—unconscionable because enforcement would be unjust given circumstances. | No; not unconscionable; enforcement affirmed. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying reargument/incorporation of the 2011 ruling. | Plaintiff—error in addressing disclosure timing. | Defendant—court properly denied reargument. | No error; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether there was a fair and reasonable disclosure under § 46b-36g(a)(3). | Disclosures adequate; income and assets disclosed. | Disclosure insufficient due to Schedule E omission. | Disclosures adequate; defendant knew plaintiff’s financial picture. |
| Whether Oldani v. Oldani governs the outcome due to alleged Schedule E omissions. | Oldani requires strict disclosure; plaintiff complied. | Oldani controls; disclosure incomplete. | Oldani not controlling to reverse; disclosure adequate under Friezo analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oldani v. Oldani, 132 Conn. App. 609 (2011) (fair and reasonable disclosure requires general approximation, not exact figures; failure to disclose income may void enforcement)
- Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166 (2007) (disclosures need not be exact; must provide general approximation and may include a schedule)
- Schoenborn v. Schoenborn, 144 Conn. App. 846 (2013) (prenups enforceable if not unjust at dissolution; heavy burden on challenger)
- Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn. App. 721 (2005) (McHugh framework applied; none of the unusual-change circumstances here)
- McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn. 482 (1980) (premarital agreements honored absent extraordinary changes making enforcement unjust)
- Bedrick v. Bedrick, 300 Conn. 691 (2011) (premarital agreement act codifies McHugh standards against unconscionability)