Estate of Eichstadt, 983 N.W.2d 572

Paul Eichstadt (wealthy farmer) and Kathryn began relationship; Kathryn moved in and later agreed to marry Paul in 2002–2003.
On July 17, 2003 Paul drove Kathryn to his attorney’s office; attorney represented Paul, gave Kathryn a notice that he did not represent her, and Kathryn signed a prenuptial agreement after skimming it (meeting ~10–15 minutes).
The Agreement waived spousal rights (elective share, homestead, dower/curtesy, etc.); Paul offered to pay for counsel but Kathryn declined, trusting Paul.
Paul and Kathryn married July 24, 2003; they separated in 2016, Paul changed his will, and died September 2016; Kathryn sought elective share and other statutory spouse allowances.
Circuit court held Kathryn did not voluntarily sign and that the Agreement was unconscionable; estate appealed. Supreme Court affirmed the involuntariness ruling but reversed the unconscionability ruling for lack of statutory findings about disclosure/knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Estate)	Defendant's Argument (Kathryn)	Held
Whether trial court improperly shifted burden of proof	Court forced Estate to go first and effectively required it to prove voluntariness	Kathryn notes no objection at trial; court acknowledged Kathryn bore the burden	Not preserved for review; court and parties consistently treated Kathryn as having burden; no reversible error
Whether Kathryn voluntarily signed the Agreement	Signature was voluntary: she had capacity, declined counsel, signed knowingly, no duress/undue influence shown	Signing was involuntary given deception by Paul, surprise presentation, short review time, limited education, relational control and fear of losing Paul	Affirmed — appellate court found no clear error in trial court’s factual finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign (totality of circumstances supported it)
Whether Agreement was unconscionable / unenforceable under SDCL provisions requiring disclosure	Agreement not unconscionable; Paul provided a financial disclosure and Kathryn had or could obtain adequate knowledge	Agreement leaves Kathryn with nothing and Paul’s disclosure minimized assets; overall factual context makes the waiver unconscionable	Reversed — trial court failed to make the statutory findings (fair/reasonable disclosure; written waiver of disclosure; adequate knowledge). Record does not support a conclusion that disclosure/knowledge requirements were unmet

In re Estate of Smid, 756 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 2008) (discusses voluntariness of postnuptial waiver and limits on attacking a signed waiver absent wrongful conduct)
Smetana v. Smetana, 726 N.W.2d 887 (S.D. 2007) (UPAA interpretation and close scrutiny of antenuptial agreements)
Sanford v. Sanford, 694 N.W.2d 283 (S.D. 2005) (premarital agreements enforceable without consideration; disclosure principles)
Ryken v. Ryken, 461 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 1990) (adequate knowledge/disclosure standards for premarital agreements)
Schutterle v. Schutterle, 260 N.W.2d 341 (S.D. 1977) (historical recognition of validity of antenuptial agreements and review for disproportionate terms)
In re Estate of Gab, 364 N.W.2d 924 (S.D. 1985) (noting close scrutiny of postnuptial agreements because of confidential relationship between spouses)