148 A.3d 277
Me.2016Background
- Sharon and Ronald Blanchard signed a premarital agreement on June 18, 1986, and married four days later; they later separated and Sharon filed for divorce in 2012.
- The agreement (pre-UPAA) purported to release Sharon’s marital rights in Ronald’s property and specified limited divorce remedies after a marriage exceeding five years (repayment of $2,100 with 12% interest, temporary spousal support, division of furnishings, car selection rights, etc.).
- Ronald’s net worth was substantially larger; the trial court found Sharon had full financial disclosure, six weeks to review the draft, requested and received specific revisions, and had consulted independent counsel.
- The trial court found the prenup was valid and, after applying the agreement, concluded Ronald had fulfilled his obligations under it; the divorce judgment did not order further support or distributions.
- Sharon appealed, raising (1) invalidity/unconscionability of the prenup, (2) enforcement of a 2010 loan not included in the prenup, (3) unpaid interim spousal support, and (4) interest calculation/crediting disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity / unconscionability of premarital agreement | Prenup is invalid/unconscionable given disparity and allegedly insufficient findings | Agreement is valid: full disclosure, independent counsel, revisions, fair/adequate terms | Agreement valid; presumption of fraud rebutted by evidence of disclosure, notice, understanding, and fairness |
| Enforcement of 2010 loan not in prenup | Court should divide marital property to enforce 2010 loan | Prenup released marital rights; loan not included so not enforceable in divorce | Court properly declined to enforce the 2010 loan in the divorce; civil remedies remain available |
| Unpaid interim spousal support arrearage | Court should award unpaid interim support disclosed at trial | Court credited prior temporary support and treated obligations as satisfied under agreement | Judgment omitted express arrearage but record supports implied modification; no remand or reversal for abuse of discretion |
| Interest calculation / crediting of support | Loan amount under prenup should bear compound interest; argued crediting of only certain interim payments | Agreement did not promise compound interest; crediting argument not preserved | Simple (noncompounding) interest applied; compound interest rejected; specific crediting claim not preserved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoag v. Dick, 799 A.2d 391 (2002) (de novo review of premarital agreement validity and UPAA discussion)
- Rolfe v. Rolfe, 130 A. 877 (1925) (premarital agreements require no fraud, full disclosure, adequate provision)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 170 A.2d 679 (1961) (presumption of fraud when provisions clearly disproportionate; court may refuse enforcement if unconscionable)
- Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (2007) (appellate assumption of implied findings in absence of motion for further findings)