In re Parrett v. Wright
2017 Ohio 9057
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Richard Parrett and Ellen Schwartz Wright signed a one-page antenuptial agreement in June 2005 before marrying; the agreement generically referenced each party’s property but contained no detailed asset list or attachments.
- Parrett alleged he was not informed of significant assets Ellen owned (undisclosed bank accounts, interests in real estate, and payments from a business sale) and sued after Ellen’s 2015 death to set the agreement aside.
- The executor, Edward Wright (Ellen’s son), drafted the agreement and later defended its validity as representative of Ellen’s estate.
- On initial bench trial the probate court upheld the agreement; this court reversed, holding the proponent (the estate) bears the burden to prove full disclosure.
- On remand the estate offered limited additional evidence (a 2006 joint tax return filed after the marriage and Parrett’s 1997 pension buyout), but no proof that Parrett knew of Ellen’s undisclosed assets when signing.
- The probate court again found the antenuptial agreement invalid for lack of full disclosure and granted Parrett 35 days to exercise any spouse-related rights; the executor appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parrett) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of antenuptial agreement based on full disclosure | Agreement is invalid because Ellen’s assets were not fully disclosed to Parrett before signing | Agreement is valid; Parrett entered knowingly and without fraud, duress, or overreaching | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion—no full disclosure shown so agreement invalid |
| Burden of proof on disclosure | Parrett argued estate must prove full disclosure (per prior opinion) | Wright contended Parrett failed to show coercion or lack of knowledge | Court followed precedent: burden shifts to proponent of agreement to prove full disclosure; estate failed to meet it |
| Relevance of post-marriage tax return (2006) | Tax return filed after marriage does not show Parrett’s knowledge at time of signing | Wright relied on the tax return as evidence of disclosure | Court held the 2006 return was after the agreement and did not establish disclosure of amounts or other assets; it was insufficient |
| Trial court’s grant of 35 days to exercise spouse rights and statutory election deadlines | Parrett reserved right to be treated as surviving spouse and to elect against the will | Wright argued Parrett failed to timely elect and failed to appear as required by statute | Court declined to resolve statutory-election issues on this record (estate-case record not before court) and found any objection here waived by Wright’s failure to object below; affirmed trial court entry as to waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St.3d 99 (Ohio 1984) (three-part standard for enforceability of prenuptial agreements: entered freely, full disclosure, and not encouraging divorce)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 68 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 1994) (burden-shifting: when an antenuptial agreement creates a disproportionate allocation, the proponent must prove full disclosure)
- Bisker v. Bisker, 69 Ohio St.3d 608 (Ohio 1994) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for factual findings on validity of antenuptial agreements)
- Hook v. Hook, 69 Ohio St.2d 234 (Ohio 1982) (adequate disclosure found where stated asset figure approximated actual assets)
- Zimmie v. Zimmie, 11 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 1984) (antenuptial agreement set aside for lack of full disclosure)
- Kinkle v. Kinkle, 83 Ohio St.3d 150 (Ohio 1998) (upholding prenuptial agreement when specific assets were listed in an exhibit to the agreement)