Scott Wakefield v. Erin Wakefield, 25-AP-406

The parties married in 2017 after signing a premarital agreement that identified husband’s farmhouse as his separate property. 1
The agreement gave husband sole ownership and testamentary control over his separate property and waived wife’s claims in divorce. 2
Husband also signed a will the same day giving wife a life estate in the farmhouse if he died while married to her. 3
The family division found the agreement enforceable except for the farmhouse provisions, which it deemed unconscionable and alternatively constructively abandoned. 4
The court then awarded husband the farmhouse but ordered him to pay wife one-third of its equity, prompting this appeal. 5

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the farmhouse provisions unconscionable when signed? 6	Wakefield: no; the agreement simply preserved his separate property.	Wakefield: the farmhouse provisions were unfair windfalls and deprived her of marital value.	No; the provisions were not unconscionable. 7
Did the agreement’s stated purpose exclude the farmhouse? 8	Wakefield: the text protected all separate property, including the farmhouse.	Wakefield: the agreement aimed only to protect the dairy business.	No; the agreement’s plain language covered the farmhouse. 9
Did the will and estate plan constructively abandon the agreement? 10	Wakefield: no; the will was consistent with the agreement and not a waiver.	Wakefield: the life-estate will showed abandonment of the farmhouse provision.	No; there was no constructive abandonment. 11

Gamache v. Smurro, 180 Vt. 113, 904 A.2d 91 (Vt. 2006) (premarital agreements are construed as contracts 12)
Falcao v. Richardson, 220 Vt. 310, 329 A.3d 208 (Vt. 2024) (contract interpretation and unconscionability are reviewed de novo 13)
Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353, 593 A.2d 82 (Vt. 1991) (sets enforceability requirements for premarital agreements 14)
Stalb v. Stalb, 168 Vt. 235, 719 A.2d 421 (Vt. 1998) (traditional unconscionability shocks the conscience standard 15)
Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16 (Vt. 2025) (premarital agreements may preserve prior property and avoid unconscionability 16)
Rock v. Rock, 2023 VT 42 (Vt. 2023) (parties may waive premarital agreement provisions and same-transaction instruments may be read together 17)
Gade v. Gade, 2025 VT 68 (Vt. 2025) (spouses may enforce agreements reflecting their own property disposition 18)
Centeno v. Centeno, 2024 VT 30 (Vt. 2024) (a finding is clearly erroneous if unsupported by the record 19)
Begins v. Begins, 168 Vt. 298, 721 A.2d 469 (Vt. 1998) (appellate courts do not sustain conclusions unsupported by findings 20)
Rounds v. Malletts Bay Club, Inc., 203 Vt. 473, 157 A.3d 1101 (Vt. 2016) (instruments executed as part of the same transaction should be read together 21)
Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell, 208 Vt. 578, 201 A.3d 326 (Vt. 2018) (same-time instruments on the same subject matter should be construed together 22)
Krupp v. Krupp, 126 Vt. 511, 236 A.2d 653 (Vt. 1967) (a recitation of evidence is not a finding of fact 23)