Cooper v. Guido, 75 So. 3d 1104

Janice C. Cooper and Wesley Cooper married on February 27, 1998 and signed an antenuptial agreement the morning of the wedding.
The antenuptial agreement includes a broad waiver of rights to the other spouse’s estate and a no-contest clause regarding the other’s will and lifetime dispositions.
During the marriage Wesley executed a 2007 will leaving his estate to his daughters, Carolyn C. Guido and Deborah Lynn Cooper Hill, and a 2008 deed conveying the home to Carolyn and Deborah.
Wesley died; Carolyn petitioned to probate the will and Janice contested the will, claiming undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity, among other things.
Carolyn moved for summary judgment arguing that the antenuptial agreement precluded the will contest, which the chancery court granted, and Janice’s motion to set aside was denied.
On appeal, Janice challenges the validity and enforceability of the antenuptial agreement, including procedural and substantive unconscionability and no-contest provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the antenuptial agreement is enforceable to bar a will contest	Cooper contends the agreement was unconscionable or involuntary and thus unenforceable.	Guido argues the agreement was voluntary, clear, and enforceable, precluding the contest.	Enforceable; no genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.
Whether the agreement was procedurally unconscionable	Cooper asserts duress and lack of independent counsel invalidate execution.	Guido asserts voluntary signing with disclosure; no procedural defect shown.	No procedural unconscionability; execution found voluntary.
Whether the agreement was substantively unconscionable or a contract of adhesion	Cooper claims unfairness and oppression in form and terms.	Guido argues standard, freely negotiated contract terms with adequate disclosure.	Not substantively unconscionable; enforceable contract.
Whether no-contest provisions in antenuptial agreements are void or subject to heightened scrutiny	Cooper seeks to void or limit the no-contest clause as public policy or heightened scrutiny warranted.	Guido maintains the no-contest provision is valid and enforceable.	No-contest provision enforceable as part of a valid antenuptial agreement.

Long v. Long, 928 So.2d 1001 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (antenuptial agreements are enforceable like other contracts; disclosure required)
Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (standard for validity of antenuptial agreements; potential need for consideration and disclosure)
Ware v. Ware, 7 So.3d 271 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (no requirement for independent counsel for validity of antenuptial agreements)
Smith v. Smith, 656 So.2d 1143 (Miss. 1995) (duty of disclosure in antenuptial agreements)
Estate of Hensley v. Estate of Hensley, 524 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1988) (cites limitation on relief from burdens of contract terms; cannot rewrite contract anew)
Power v. Scott, 837 So.2d 202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (no-contest provisions; standing to contest wills)