Murray v. Murray, 299 Ga. 703

Married ~34 years; Wife sought to save marriage while Husband sought divorce; Wife wrote a letter renouncing marital rights and Husband had counsel prepare a post-nuptial agreement (the “Agreement”).
Parties signed the Agreement on June 5, 2014; Agreement allocated marital property favorably to Husband and provided for disposition on divorce or death.
Wife testified Husband induced her to sign by promising he would tear up the Agreement immediately (or when they reconciled), making her believe signing was symbolic and would not be enforced.
After signing, Husband kept the Agreement for nearly six months while reconciliation attempts continued and did not destroy it; Wife later filed for divorce in October 2014.
Trial court credited Wife’s testimony, found Husband’s promise amounted to fraud given the confidential spousal relationship, and declared the Agreement unenforceable; Husband appealed.

Issue	Murray (Wife)	Murray (Husband)	Held
Whether the post-nuptial agreement was procured by fraud and thus unenforceable	Agreement procured by Husband’s promise to destroy it—Wife signed relying on that assurance	Husband said he promised to destroy it only if/when comfortable they were in love again; not a present intent to deceive	Court: Husband’s promise and retention of the document supported fraud finding; Agreement unenforceable
Whether spousal confidential relationship affects admissibility/weight of oral promise	Oral promise is trustworthy given confidential relationship; equity requires enforcement of that trust	Oral statements should not override a written agreement absent clear proof	Court: Marital confidential relationship makes the promise not to enforce credible; parole-evidence exclusion inapplicable in this context
Standard of review for trial court’s factual credibility findings	Trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference	Same	Court: Reviewed legal conclusions de novo and upheld factual findings as not clearly erroneous
Whether slight evidence can establish fraud in family transactions	Slight circumstances suffice to prove fraud in family dealings	Requires stronger proof to overcome written agreement	Court: Slight evidence (retention + later enforcement) sufficient given relationship and nature of transaction

Alexander v. Alexander, 279 Ga. 116 (recognizes trial court approves/denies post-nuptial agreements in equity)
Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635 (sets factors for validity of post-nuptial agreements: fraud/duress, unconscionability, changed circumstances)
Dye v. Dye, 231 Ga. 533 (failure to perform a future promise constitutes fraud when coupled with present intent not to perform)
Mallen v. Mallen, 280 Ga. 43 (spouses have a confidential relationship justifying reliance and special scrutiny)