2024 ND 224
N.D.2024Background
- Jennie Olson and Jonathan Olson married in August 2020, and two days before the marriage, Jonathan presented Jennie with a premarital agreement.
- The agreement stipulated both parties would keep their separate property in the event of divorce; at the time, Jonathan’s net worth was over $11 million, while Jennie’s was under $400,000.
- Jennie and Jonathan separated in July 2022, and Jennie filed for divorce, contesting the premarital agreement's validity.
- The trial was bifurcated: first on the validity/enforceability of the agreement, then on property distribution; the court found the agreement valid and held there was no marital property to distribute.
- On appeal, Jennie challenged the agreement’s validity based on lack of legal representation, insufficient financial disclosure, involuntariness or duress, unconscionability, as well as certain evidentiary and procedural decisions by the district court.
- Both parties requested attorney’s fees and costs on appeal; the court denied both requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of Access to Independent Legal Representation | Agreement unenforceable due to insufficient time to get legal counsel | Jennie had reasonable time and chose not to retain counsel | District court's finding Jennie had access to counsel is not clearly erroneous |
| Adequate Financial Disclosure | Did not receive full disclosure of Jonathan’s finances | Jennie had knowledge/ reasonable basis for finances, and balance sheets attached | District court's finding of adequate disclosure is supported by evidence |
| Voluntariness & Duress | Consent was involuntary and under duress | Jennie was aware, educated, experienced, and voluntarily signed | No clear error in finding of voluntary consent and no duress |
| Substantive Unconscionability | Agreement unconscionable due to disparity in bargaining power | No specific unconscionable terms argued; disparity alone does not suffice | No error; no term found unconscionable at signing |
| Rebuttal Witness & Sequestration | Allowing undisclosed rebuttal witness was error | Witness proper as rebuttal and timely disclosed for rebuttal | No abuse of discretion in admitting witness |
| Exclusion of Text Message | Excluding text message attaching agreement was error | Not relevant to issues at second trial (property, not enforceability) | No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper |
| Attorney’s Fees on Appeal | Sought fees under appeal/frivolous argument | Sought own fees under contract/frivolous argument | Agreement required parties to pay own fees; no fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Fercho v. Fercho, 982 N.W.2d 540 (N.D. 2022) (standard of review for contract interpretation and findings of fact in marital agreements)
- In re Estate of Lutz, 620 N.W.2d 589 (N.D. 2000) (applying the clear error standard for findings of fact regarding legal representation access)
- State v. Hill, 590 N.W.2d 187 (N.D. 1999) (sequestration rule as applied to rebuttal witnesses)
- State v. Wanner, 784 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 2010) (purpose and application of sequestration orders)
- Ehrman v. Feist, 568 N.W.2d 747 (N.D. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for allowing rebuttal witnesses)