Silverman v. Silverman, 206 A.3d 825

In 1997 David and Michelle Silverman signed a written premarital agreement before a secret Las Vegas wedding; Michelle was advised by independent counsel who recommended she not sign, but she signed an acknowledgement and the agreement.
The agreement waived spousal support and allocated post-marital property to remain separate, among other broad waivers favorable to David (Husband).
Husband provided a summary disclosure of assets and liabilities before signing; Wife later alleged the disclosure had errors/omissions (car title, $3,000 life policy, misdescribed land interest) and that disclosure came too close to signing.
The parties divorced in 2015; Wife sought to set aside the premarital agreement claiming involuntariness, unconscionability, inadequate counsel, and inadequate financial disclosure.
The Family Court found the agreement voluntary but unconscionable and that Husband’s disclosure was insufficient; it refused enforcement. Husband appealed.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that under 13 Del. C. § 326 the challenger must show both unconscionability and inadequate disclosure, and that Husband’s disclosure met the statute’s “fair and reasonable” standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unconscionability alone can invalidate a premarital agreement under § 326	Silverman (Wife): unconscionability (extreme wealth disparity) should be sufficient	Husband: statute requires unconscionability plus inadequate disclosure; voluntariness and counsel advise present	Court: § 326 is conjunctive—unconscionability alone does not invalidate; challenger must also prove lack of fair and reasonable disclosure, no written waiver, and lack of adequate knowledge
Whether Husband provided a "fair and reasonable" disclosure of assets/obligations before signing	Wife: disclosure was untimely, contained material errors/omissions (car title, life policy, land interest) and thus inadequate	Husband: disclosures gave a general and approximate picture of net worth; errors were immaterial and did not mislead; Wife had independent counsel	Court: Disclosure met the statutory standard (general/approximate net-worth); the listed errors were immaterial and timing did not render disclosure unfair; agreement must be enforced

Stewart v. Stewart, 41 A.3d 401 (Del. 2012) (standard of appellate review in Family Court matters)
Hughes v. Peterson, 41 A.3d 395 (Del. 2012) (unconscionability of premarital agreement decided as a question of law)
Matter of Estate of Thies, 903 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1995) (describing disclosure as a general and approximate statement of net worth under UPAA)
Wilson v. Moore, 929 S.W.2d 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (inadvertent nondisclosure or undervaluation not fatal where disclosure provides an essentially accurate understanding of holdings)