McLeod v. McLeod
145 So. 3d 1246
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Willie and Jeanell McLeod signed a prenuptial agreement the day of their marriage in 2001; the agreement (drafted by Willie’s attorney) provided each would retain separate property on divorce.
- During marriage they largely maintained separate finances; Jeanell had limited pre-marital assets and worked in Willie’s business.
- Jeanell later sought a declaratory judgment alleging the prenup was invalid for lack of notarization, missing financial exhibits, absence of independent counsel and inadequate disclosure; the chancellor initially found fraud in the inducement but then struck that ground as unpled and instead found the agreement unconscionable and invalid.
- After trials and post-judgment motions, the chancellor divided the marital estate; Willie appealed the finding that the prenup was invalid and the asset division.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it concluded the record showed voluntary execution, adequate disclosure and procedural fairness, and that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable; the case was remanded for enforcement of the prenup and further proceedings consistent with that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | McLeod (Willie) Argument | McLeod (Jeanell) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of prenuptial agreement | Agreement is a valid contract: voluntary execution, adequate disclosure, fair in execution, not unconscionable | Agreement invalid: not notarized, referenced exhibits absent, no independent counsel, inadequate disclosure, unconscionable | Reversed chancellor; prenup enforceable — voluntariness, disclosure, and fairness supported; not unconscionable |
| Requirement of financial disclosure/exhibits | No statutory requirement that a disclosure exhibit be attached; parties can be aware of assets | Lack of attached full financial disclosure renders agreement invalid | Court held disclosure was sufficient based on the parties’ knowledge and representations; missing exhibits did not void agreement |
| Procedural fairness (independent counsel/time to review) | Jeanell had opportunity to review, discussed drafts with attorney who prepared agreement; independent counsel not required | Lack of independent counsel and limited review time made execution unfair | Court held execution procedurally fair: she negotiated drafts, had opportunity to consult counsel, and acknowledged understanding |
| Division of marital assets after prenup invalidation | Chancellor erred in asset division calculations and handling of Ferguson factors if prenup controls | Chancellor previously divided whole estate because he found prenup invalid | Because prenup is enforceable, case remanded to chancellor to dissolve marriage and divide assets consistent with agreement and applicable Ferguson framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 656 So.2d 1143 (Miss. 1995) (prenuptial agreements require fairness in execution and duty of disclosure)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (independent counsel not strictly required; agreement can be valid without attached disclosure)
- West v. West, 891 So.2d 203 (Miss. 2004) (doctrine of procedural and substantive unconscionability)
- Ware v. Ware, 7 So.3d 271 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (party obliged to read contract; absence of counsel does not automatically void prenup)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (framework and factors for equitable division of marital assets)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1994) (process for classifying, valuing, and equitably dividing marital and nonmarital assets)