912 N.W.2d 617
Minn.2018Background
- Robbie and Michelle married after Robbie presented an antenuptial agreement three days before their destination wedding; Robbie had his attorney draft it without Michelle's knowledge and threatened to call off the wedding if she did not sign.
- Michelle had limited income, contributed substantially to Robbie’s farm during the marriage, and signed after a single late consultation with a new attorney.
- The Agreement broadly defined "Property" (marital and nonmarital) and provided each party would retain their property and waive spousal maintenance.
- Michelle later sought dissolution (2010) and moved to set aside the Agreement as unfair; the district court invalidated it under Minn. Stat. § 519.11 for lack of adequate opportunity to consult counsel and found substantive unfairness.
- The court of appeals affirmed, but applied the common-law procedural-fairness test from In re Estate of Kinney rather than § 519.11.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether § 519.11 or the common law governs agreements addressing both marital and nonmarital property and whether the Agreement was procedurally fair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kremer) | Defendant's Argument (Michelle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 519.11 governs procedural fairness for antenuptial agreements that address both marital and nonmarital property | § 519.11 applies and its two statutory conditions (full disclosure and opportunity to consult counsel) were met, so the Agreement is valid | § 519.11 does not displace the common law for provisions addressing marital property; common-law standards apply | The statute creates a "safe harbor" only for provisions addressing nonmarital property; common law governs provisions outside that safe harbor; affirmed court of appeals' reliance on common law |
| If common law applies, which test controls procedural fairness: McKee-Johnson standard or Kinney multifactor test? | McKee-Johnson interpretation aligns statutory and common-law procedural tests | Kinney's multifactor balancing test is the proper common-law standard | Overruled McKee-Johnson to the extent it equated the tests; Kinney multifactor test governs common-law review |
| Whether the Agreement (as a whole) qualified for § 519.11 safe harbor (i.e., whether its provisions clearly addressed only nonmarital property) | Agreement’s labels and disclosures satisfy statute; safe harbor applies | Agreement conflates marital and nonmarital property by using the catchall term “Property,” so safe harbor does not clearly apply | Agreement conflated categories; safe harbor did not apply; Kinney factors applied to entire Agreement |
| Whether the Agreement was procedurally fair under Kinney | Proponent argued full disclosure occurred and Michelle had a chance to consult counsel | Michelle argued inadequate consideration and she signed under duress due to timing and threat to cancel the wedding | Agreement was not "equitably and fairly made": consideration was inadequate and execution was procured by duress; Agreement invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007) (articulates multifactor common-law test for procedural fairness of antenuptial agreements)
- McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1989) (interpreted § 519.11 as codifying procedural fairness for nonmarital property and looked to common law for marital property)
- In re Estate of Serbus, 324 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1982) (discusses adequacy of consideration and disclosure in antenuptial agreement context)
- Slingerland v. Slingerland, 132 N.W. 326 (Minn. 1911) (early precedent on adequacy of consideration for antenuptial agreements)
- Estrada v. Hanson, 10 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. 1943) (contract consideration principles referenced in antenuptial-context discussion)