76 A.3d 1221
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Barbara Stewart signed a prenuptial agreement prior to marrying James Stewart, waiving her rights in listed assets.
- The agreement omitted Mr. Stewart’s IRA and did not assign values to listed assets; Barbara had little to no separate property.
- After marriage, the Stewarts pursued divorce; Mr. Stewart sought enforcement of the prenuptial agreement, Barbara challenged its validity.
- Circuit court found the agreement valid and enforceable; the parties entered into a property settlement incorporating the prenuptial terms, while Barbara reserved the right to appeal.
- Barbara contends lack of full disclosure, close timing before the wedding, and unconscionability; she argues she had limited opportunity to consult counsel.
- Assets discussed include Waldorf Concrete, Route 231 real estate, Waldorf Business Square units, a West Virginia lot, and Brandywine Building Supply stock; two substantial marital properties were later valued at substantial sums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the prenup given disclosure | Stewart asserts inadequate disclosure and lack of actual knowledge. | Stewart contends disclosure and knowledge were sufficient; no overreaching. | Prenup valid and enforceable; no overreaching. |
| Conscionability of the prenup | Agreement is one-sided and unconscionable. | No unconscionability; both procedural and substantive prongs fail to prove it. | Not unconscionable. |
| Procedural aspects of formation (timing and counseling) | Signed four days before wedding with no counsel, under pressure. | Opportunity to seek counsel existed; signing was voluntary and informed. | Procedural overreaching not established; signing was voluntary and understanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ort el v. Gettig, 207 Md. 594 (Md. 1955) (inadequate disclosure defeats validity of premarital agreements)
- Cannon v. Cannon, 384 Md. 537 (Md. 2005) (disclosure and knowledge standards; overreaching test)
- Hartz v. Hartz, 248 Md. 47 (Md. 1967) (overreaching test; substantive and procedural prongs)
- Martin v. Farber, 68 Md. App. 137 (Md. Ct. App. 1986) (unconscionability limits in antenuptial contracts)
- Doyle v. Finance America, LLC, 173 Md. App. 370 (Md. Ct. App. 2007) (procedural unconscionability considerations)
- Farber, 68 Md. App. 137 (Md. 1986) (lead authority on premarital unconscionability; constructive trust discussion)