Elizabeth Roberts v. Eric Roberts, as trustee of the W. David Roberts Revocable Trust, Dave Roberts Growth & Ventures, Inc., and Eric Roberts as personal representative of the Estate of William David Roberts, 6 N.W.3d 730

David and Elizabeth Roberts signed a valid premarital agreement in 1993, waiving each other's elective share but granting each spouse a one-third interest in the other's real property at death.
In 2017, after 24 years of marriage and multiple property investments, they executed a "partial revocation" of the prenup. This removed Elizabeth's one-third share of David’s real property, and in exchange, Elizabeth received approximately $15,000 in cash, $50,000 in debt repayment/forgiveness, and a monthly living allowance.
After David’s death in 2022, his estate (held largely in a revocable trust for his son Eric) invoked the partial revocation to limit Elizabeth’s share.
Elizabeth challenged the validity of the 2017 postnuptial amendment, arguing it was not permitted under Iowa law.
The district court enforced the partial revocation; Elizabeth appealed.
The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding such postmarital amendments to premarital agreements regarding elective shares are not enforceable under Iowa Code §§ 596.7 and 597.2.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Elizabeth)	Defendant's Argument (Eric)	Held
Can a premarital agreement be amended post-marriage to affect elective share rights?	Iowa law only allows total revocation, not amendment, of premarital agreements after marriage.	The law does not forbid amendments; mutual agreement should allow change.	No. Iowa law allows revocation but not amendment. Amendment affecting elective shares is unenforceable.
Is the 2017 partial revocation supported by proper consideration and public policy?	The 2017 agreement lacked adequate consideration and was unconscionable.	The agreement was a valid contract, exchanged for substantial consideration.	Not reached; court found amendment unenforceable on statutory grounds.
Should Elizabeth return benefits received if the 2017 agreement is unenforceable?	The counterclaim is unsupported by law or evidence.	Failure to restore the consideration results in unjust enrichment.	Remanded for district court to address this counterclaim.
Are other contract principles (e.g., common law modifications) applicable?	Postmarital agreement modifying elective share rights is void under Iowa statutes.	O’Dell allows such modification/waiver so long as parties are competent.	O’Dell did not control; statutory provisions override common law here.

In re Marriage of Shanks, 758 N.W.2d 506 (Iowa 2008) (premarital agreements waiving elective shares enforced if fair and reasonable)
In re Est. of Spurgeon, 572 N.W.2d 595 (Iowa 1998) (affirmed enforcement of premarital agreements waiving estate claims)
In re Est. of Wulf, 471 N.W.2d 850 (Iowa 1991) (statute shields one spouse’s dower interest from exploitation by the other)
Cummings v. Wood, 199 N.W. 369 (Iowa 1924) (statute reserves elective share except waived by antenuptial contract)
Young v. Young-Wishard, 288 N.W. 420 (Iowa 1939) (statute prohibits postmarital agreements relating directly to dower rights)
Battin v. Merchants’ State Bank of Correctionville, 208 N.W. 343 (Iowa 1926) (voids postmarital attempts to deprive a spouse of their share)