Julie M. Fetters v. Jay M. Fetters, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 113

Julie and Jay began a sexual relationship when Julie was 14 and Jay was 29;
Julie became pregnant at 15, and Jay proposed marriage to avoid prosecution for sexual misconduct with a minor;
Before marriage, Julie signed a premarital agreement drafted by Jay’s attorney, promising each party would keep separate property;
Julie, who had limited reading ability and no independent legal counsel, signed the agreement with her mother present;
The trial court denied Julie’s attempt to invalidate the premarital agreement;
On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held the premarital agreement was unconscionable at execution and void, reversing and remanding for equitable property division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the premarital agreement unconscionable at execution?	Fetters contends unconscionability.	Fetters argues the agreement was valid.	Yes; the agreement was unconscionable.
Does laches/estoppel bar Julie from challenging the agreement?	Julie allegedly waited to disavow after maturity.	Palamora bars after benefits acceptance.	No; laches/estoppel did not bar her.
What is the remedy given the unconscionability?	Premarital agreement should be voided in part or whole.	Agreement remains enforceable.	The agreement is void; remand for property division under general laws.

Rider v. Rider, 669 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 1996) (premarital agreements not unconscionable if fair and voluntary)
Wiley v. Wilson, 77 Ind. 596 (Ind. 1881) (contracts entered by a minor are voidable)
Palamora v. Palamora, 513 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (equitable defenses like laches/estoppel; reliance on benefits not sufficient here)
Estate of Palamora v. Palamora, 513 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (reaffirmed laches/estoppel analysis in premarital context)
Boetsma v. Boestma, 768 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (premarital agreements generally favor validity but not if unconscionable)