In re Parrett v. Wright
2017 Ohio 764
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Richard Parrett and Ellen Schwartz Parrett signed an antenuptial agreement on June 20, 2005; neither had counsel and the document was prepared by Ellen’s son, Edward Wright (later executor).
- The agreement broadly waived spousal rights to "real estate and personal property" without an attached asset list or specific disclosures.
- Ellen died January 2, 2015; Richard filed to set aside the antenuptial agreement on April 9, 2015, alleging duress and lack of knowledge of Ellen’s assets.
- At bench trial, the probate court found Richard failed to prove he lacked knowledge of Ellen’s assets and upheld the agreement; Richard appealed.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by placing the burden on Richard to prove lack of disclosure and found the record suggests Ellen’s assets were not disclosed (undisclosed bank accounts, real-estate interests, business payments).
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the proponent (Ellen’s estate) bore the burden to prove full disclosure where the agreement produced a disproportionate result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of antenuptial agreement | Parrett: burden was on estate to prove he entered agreement with full knowledge; agreement was procured by duress/insufficient disclosure | Wright/estate: agreement was valid; Parrett failed to prove lack of knowledge or duress | Reversed trial court: burden rests on proponent to show full disclosure when agreement yields disproportionate result; record indicates assets were not disclosed; remanded |
| Allocation of evidentiary burden | Parrett: estate must show full disclosure/knowledge by proponent of assets | Estate: trial court placed burden on Parrett to show lack of disclosure | Court: trial court erred; burden-shift rule from Fletcher requires proponent to prove disclosure |
| Sufficiency of disclosure (existence of asset list or other means) | Parrett: no asset list or specific disclosures; testified unaware of many assets | Estate: (implied) broad language of waiver sufficed | Court: agreement lacked attached listing and evidence shows undisclosed assets; disclosure insufficient |
| Whether agreement was entered freely (duress/fraud) | Parrett: signed under duress/pressure from Ellen and her son | Estate: signed voluntarily | Court: noted trial court found voluntary but reversed because of erroneous burden placement and disclosure issues; further proceedings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Rowland, 74 Ohio App.3d 415 (4th Dist. 1991) (definition and scope of antenuptial agreements)
- Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St.3d 99 (Ohio 1984) (test for validity: no fraud/duress, full disclosure/knowledge, no encouragement of divorce)
- Zimmie v. Zimmie, 11 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 1984) (fiduciary duties of parties re: good faith and disclosure)
- Cohen v. Estate of Cohen, 23 Ohio St.3d 90 (Ohio 1986) (disclosure duties in antenuptial context)
- Bisker v. Bisker, 69 Ohio St.3d 608 (Ohio 1994) (validity of antenuptial agreement is factual; abuse of discretion standard)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 68 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 1994) (when agreement yields disproportionate result, proponent must prove full knowledge/disclosure)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1985) (abuse of discretion defined)