Tanya Dale Wright Sanderson v. Hobson L. Sanderson, Jr., 170 So. 3d 430

Background

This case arises from the financial phase of a bifurcated divorce after a 17-year marriage.
Tanya Sanderson signed a prenuptial agreement the day before the wedding; it was enforced at divorce.
The agreement waived alimony and defined separate vs. post-marriage property, with limited cross-claims.
A joint bank account formed after marriage was at issue for commingling and property characterization.
The trial court found the joint account was Hobson’s separate property as a “clearing house” but treated it as non-marital for distribution.
The appellate court remands for consideration of substantive unconscionability and for a proper ruling on commingling involving familial use.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prenup is procedurally conscionable	Sanderson contends procedural unconscionability due to lack of time and advice	Sanderson had independent counsel and disclosures; signing proximity did not amount to undue coercion	Procedural conscionability affirmed (not error)
Whether substantive unconscionability can be considered	Sanderson argues the prenup may be substantively unconscionable	Hobson argues premarital agreements are contracts like any other and not subject to substantive review	Remanded to consider substantive unconscionability at time of contract formation
Whether joint bank funds were commingled and should be marital property	Funds in the joint account were used for familial purposes and should be marital	Funds traced to Hobson; account was a separate property mechanism under the agreement	Remanded to determine whether familial use converts funds to marital property
Whether the trial court properly distinguished separate vs. marital property	Court misclassified commingled funds and failed to account for familial use	Agreement and tracing supported treating certain assets as separate	Remanded for reconsideration of distribution consistent with substantive unconscionability ruling on remand
Whether the joint account arrangement is within the prenup's scope	The prenup covered property traceable to separate property including post-marriage funds	Joint account used for family needs was not exempt from the agreement	Remand to address whether contract language governs familial-use funds

Key Cases Cited

A & L, Inc. v. Grantham, 747 So.2d 832 (Miss. 1999) (non-marital assets may become marital if commingled or used for familial purposes absent contrary agreement)
Heigle v. Heigle, 654 So.2d 895 (Miss. 1995) (tracing and familial-use concepts in commingling analysis)
Maslowski v. Maslowski, 655 So.2d 18 (Miss. 1995) (presumption of marital property unless proven to be separate)
Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (premarital agreements enforceable; fairness in execution; may consider substantive unconscionability)
Estate of Hensley v. Estate of Hensley, 524 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1988) (fairness in execution and full disclosure required for premarital agreements)
Smith v. Smith, 656 So.2d 1143 (Miss. 1995) (premarital agreement enforceable when fair in execution)