This appeal concerns the validity of an antenuptial agreement, measured by the allegations of plaintiff’s reply as amended by which she seeks to avoid its enforcement.
The action was instituted by the appellant to recover her distributable and dowable interest in the. estate-of her deceased husband, W, A.- Brown. • The petition al *485 leged the marriage of the parties on July 2, 1950, and the death intestate of the husband on November 16, 1951. His estate was alleged to consist of personal property .of the value of $6,211.08 and real estate valued at $3,500. The answer of the administrator alleged an antenuptial agreement executed between the parties on June 29, 1950, under the terms of which each surrendered the right to share in the estate of the other after death. The reply, as twice amended, sought to avoid the' ante-nuptial agreement on the ground of fraud and concealment in its procurement. A general demurrer was sustained to the reply, and appellant declined to plead further. The only question on the appeal, although others are discussed in briefs, is whether or not the allegations of appellant’s reply and amendments, considered collectively, sufficiently charge fraud or concealment on the part of the husband in procuring the antenuptial agreement.
The allegation that the contract was procured by fraud and concealment is only a conclusion of the pleader and is insufficient to constitute a charge of fraud. Although there is some early authority to the contrary, it is now generally established that the mere averment of fraud without a statement of the facts constituting it is not good on demurrer. Davidson v. Falls,
Other than conclusions,; we are able to glean the following facts from'the pleadings, the truth of which we shall assume for the purpose of the demurrer: (1) The provisions of the agreement .-are unreasonable, in that the .estate of- the husband amounted to $10,000 while that of the wife was .only. $1,600; and (2) the nature and value of the husband’s estate and the legal effect of the contract was not explained to -the wife at the time of its execution.
Antenuptial agreements have been a fruitful source of litigation.in Kentucky, and from the many cases which have reached this Court, well-settled principles have emerged concerning their enforcement. Such contracts are. generally upheld and are regarded as favorites of the law. Hardesty v. Hardesty’s Ex’r,
The pleadings in this case merely charge that the wife was not advised as to the value or extent of the husband’s estate or the legal effect of the contract on June 29,' 1950, when the agreement was signed. The marriage did not take place until three days after the contract was signed. The pleadings do not allege, and there is nothing from which we can assume, that appellant remained in ignorance of the value of the estate and the effect of the contract until after the marriage.
In Stratton v. Wilson,
The only'remaining allegation con;cerning the. agreement is that it was unreasonable because the wife, by its terms, was surrendering considerably more than
*486
the'husband. Neither the prima facie iniquity of the antenuptial agreement nor the disparity between the allowance to the wife and the means of the husband is regarded as constituting fraud. Harlin v. Harlin,
In view of our conclusions concerning the propriety of the order sustaining the demurrer, it is unnecessary to consider or discuss the court’s rule relating to the burden of proof.
The judgment is affirmed.