IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL A. EICHSTADT
#29569-aff in pt & rev in pt-PJD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OPINION FILED 12/21/22
2022 S.D. 78
THE HONORABLE JON R. ERICKSON, Retired Judge
ARGUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022
ELIZABETH HERTZ of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellant Estate.
JEFF BURNS of Churchill, Manolis, Freeman, Kludt & Burns, LLP, Huron, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellee Kathryn Eichstadt.
#29569
[¶1.] This appeal concerns whether a surviving wife voluntarily entered into a premarital agreement that waived any right she had to the property of her deceased husband and whether that premarital agreement is unconscionable. After a one-day court trial, the circuit court found that the wife did not voluntarily sign the premarital agreement and determined that the agreement is unconscionable. The Estate appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Factual and Procedural Background
[¶2.] Paul Eichstadt, born in 1928, married Vanieda Schrimer in 1952. The couple had two children and owned and operated a farm and ranch near Wolsey, South Dakota. In 1987, Bret Bergeson accepted a job with Paul to work on the farm, and Bret, Bret‘s wife Kathryn, and their two children moved onto a farmstead owned by the Eichstadts. In 1988, Bret quit his position and left the farm. Kathryn and her children remained there, and she began helping Paul with the farm operation. She also performed limited bookkeeping services for Paul.
[¶3.] In 1989, while Kathryn was still living at the farm, Paul and Kathryn began an extramarital affair. In May 2001, Kathryn moved from the farm to Huron, where she obtained an apartment and a job. Kathryn‘s testimony implies that the affair ended at that time, but the record does not indicate why. However, Kathryn testified that after Vanieda, who was still married to Paul, passed away in July 2001, Paul started calling her and asking her to
[¶4.] The events leading up to Kathryn‘s signing of the agreement at issue in this appeal began on the morning of July 17, 2003, when Paul asked Kathryn to go for a drive. Although Kathryn did not know where he planned to take her or the purpose of the outing, she testified that this type of request from him was not uncommon. Paul drove them to see his attorney, Carl Haberstick, in Huron. Once they arrived at Haberstick‘s office, Paul asked Kathryn to come inside with him, but he did not tell her why. According to Kathryn, it was not until they were inside the office that she learned Paul had hired Haberstick to draft a premarital agreement (Agreement). She further testified that although she and Paul had discussed marriage, they had never talked about having a premarital agreement and the meeting in Haberstick‘s office was the first time she saw the Agreement.
[¶5.] According to Haberstick, prior to the July 17 meeting, he had mailed two copies of the Agreement to Paul‘s residence for Kathryn and Paul to review. He testified that Paul had informed him, prior to coming to his office on July 17, that Kathryn did not intend to hire her own lawyer to review the Agreement. At the beginning of the meeting, Haberstick handed Kathryn a letter that stated:
In talking with Paul today, he informs me that you do not wish to have an attorney review the Prenuptial Agreement before you sign it. Although I recommend you consult an attorney prior to signing, you may sign it without consultation.
You must understand that I have drafted this Agreement at the request of Paul. He is my client and I cannot represent you in this matter. As such, I cannot give you any advice concerning the Agreement.
Haberstick testified that he “tried to make it clear that [he] represent[s] Paul, not her” and that he “cannot give her any advice or really answer any questions about the consequences of her signing it or not signing it.” Kathryn signed the letter as acknowledgement of its receipt.
[¶6.] The Agreement provides in relevant part:
4) Property Ownership. All property and assets owned or acquired by either of the parties in his or her individual name or with a third party, whether before or after the marriage contemplated by this Agreement, . . . shall remain the separate property of the respective parties, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
. . .
5) Joint Property. If the parties acquire any property jointly during the marriage, the property shall be held by them as provided in the instrument conveying or evidencing title to the property.
. . .
7) Disposition of Property Upon Death.
a) Each party acknowledges that if the other dies, whether testate or intestate during the marriage, the share of the deceased party‘s estate to which the surviving party would be entitled to by law or to which a right could be asserted, except for this Agreement, could or might be greater than the share under this Agreement.
b) The estate of the deceased party may be disposed of by Will or Codicil thereto or Trust to such devisees or beneficiaries as the deceased party may determine in his or her sole discretion; or, in the absence of a Will, the estate of a deceased party shall descend to the heirs of that party as if the marriage had not taken place. In either event, each party waives, and the deceased party‘s estate shall be free of, any claim or demand of inheritance, dower, curtesy, elective share, family allowance or any other claim given to a surviving spouse by law, irrespective of the marriage or any laws to the contrary. If either of the parties has an existing will at the time of the marriage, that Will shall remain in effect, regardless of the marriage, until revoked by that party. Further, neither party intends by this Agreement to limit or restrict the right to give or receive a testamentary gift to the other by Will without invalidating this paragraph and may thereafter change or eliminate the gift by a Codicil or a subsequent Will without in any way affecting the continued effectiveness of this Agreement. . . .
11) Homestead. Each party releases any claim, demand, right or interest that may be acquired because of the marriage in any real property of the other party under the homestead provisions of the South Dakota Constitution or any South Dakota statute concerning the descent of the property as homestead.
. . .
14) Voluntariness; Independent Counsel. Both parties acknowledge that they have entered into this Agreement freely and voluntarily. Kathryn further acknowledges that she has had sufficient opportunity to consult with an attorney but has chosen not to do so. Nonetheless, Kathryn is confident she understands what her rights and obligations would be in the absence of this Agreement.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶7.] When questioned during trial about the language in section 14 of the Agreement, Haberstick explained that he added it to the Agreement shortly before Paul came to his office with Kathryn to sign it based on what he had learned from Paul. When asked if he recalled asking Kathryn whether she read the Agreement prior to coming to his office, Haberstick responded that he assumed she had read it because the Agreement states she did not want to have an attorney review it. He then added, “I didn‘t ask her have you specifically read this and understand it. But in the prenuptial agreement it says she understands it and she‘s read it.” Haberstick acknowledged that he has no recollection of seeing her read the Agreement, and he agreed that “the vast majority of individuals” would not understand terms such as dower, curtesy, and elective share.
[¶8.] When asked at trial about the estimate he gave in his deposition that the meeting in his office lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes, Haberstick testified that it could have been “a little more, a little less” and commented that he was “just guessing.” During this timeframe, Haberstick obtained information from Kathryn to complete her financial disclosure, and in addition to handing Kathryn the Agreement, Haberstick gave her a copy of Paul‘s financial disclosure to review. He did not explain the documents to her, but he did not limit the amount of time she could take to review them.
[¶9.] Kathryn testified that during the meeting, Paul was pacing and she was crying. Haberstick did not recall Kathryn crying, but he conceded that he did not have any independent recollection of the
[¶10.] Kathryn agreed that while they were at Haberstick‘s office, Paul offered to pay for a lawyer to look over the Agreement for her, but she declined. However, she explained that she declined because she trusted Paul and believed she did not need an attorney because Paul “always said he would take care of me.”
[¶11.] Ultimately, after skimming through the Agreement and Paul‘s disclosure, Kathryn signed the Agreement. Approximately a week later, on July 24, 2003, Paul and Kathryn were married in a private ceremony at her daughter‘s home in Wolsey. Kathryn testified that she did not know until that morning that their wedding would occur that day. She claimed that Paul said it was “too windy to hay” and then said, “Let‘s go get hitched.”
[¶12.] In June 2016, for reasons not disclosed in the record, Kathryn and Paul separated, and thereafter, Paul changed his will to remove previous bequests to Kathryn. It is unknown what bequests Paul had previously made to Kathryn because the prior will is not in the record. On September 16, 2016, Paul passed away, and his son, as personal representative of Paul‘s estate, filed an application for informal probate of Paul‘s will.
[¶13.] On June 8, 2017, Kathryn petitioned the circuit court for her elective share, homestead allowance, exempt property, and family allowances pursuant to
[¶14.] The Estate further noted that such agreements are enforceable unless the surviving spouse proves that he or she did not execute the agreement voluntarily or that the agreement is unconscionable. After identifying the relevant law, the Estate asserted that summary judgment would be proper because the undisputed material facts establish that Kathryn voluntarily executed the July 2003 Agreement given that she chose to sign it, declined the opportunity to hire a lawyer to review it, and otherwise presented no evidence to support that she was coerced into executing the Agreement. The Estate further claimed that the Agreement is not unconscionable because Kathryn had adequate knowledge of the nature and extent of
[¶15.] In response, Kathryn asserted that her execution of the Agreement was involuntary based on her limited education, her unequal bargaining position as compared to Paul‘s, her loyalty to Paul, and her fear of losing him. She also asserted that Paul intended to undermine her ability to process the situation in Haberstick‘s office by not giving her the Agreement ahead of time, not telling her of his plan, and lying to Haberstick prior to the meeting about her not wanting an attorney. She further claimed that Paul unduly influenced her by being the controlling person in their relationship, by using deception to get her to the meeting, by being the one with all the financial means, and by being the one that made all of the decisions. Finally, she asserted that the terms of the Agreement are unconscionable because they fail to provide for her and because Paul‘s financial disclosure minimized his assets.
[¶16.] The circuit court denied the Estate‘s motion for summary judgment and held a one-day bench trial on February 3, 2021, during which Haberstick, Kathryn‘s daughter, and Kathryn testified. The Estate submitted the deposition testimony of Paul‘s accountant in lieu of his personal appearance at trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the court took the matter under advisement.
[¶17.] On February 5, 2021, the circuit court issued a memorandum decision, which was later incorporated in the court‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law issued on February 26. The court found that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement. It further determined that the Agreement is unconscionable. The court therefore held that under
[¶18.] The Estate appeals, asserting multiple issues that are restated as follows:
- Whether the circuit court improperly placed the burden of proof on the Estate.
- Whether the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement.
- Whether the circuit court erred in determining that the Agreement is unconscionable.
Standard of Review
[¶19.] The circuit court‘s factual findings, including its finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the premarital agreement, are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review. See In re Estate of Smid, 2008 S.D. 82, ¶¶ 11, 23, 756 N.W.2d 1, 5–6, 9. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Action Mech., Inc. v. Deadwood Hist. Pres. Comm‘n, 2002 S.D. 121, ¶ 12, 652 N.W.2d 742, 748. “An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.” Smetana v. Smetana, 2007 S.D. 5, ¶ 7, 726 N.W.2d 887, 891 (quoting
Analysis and Decision
1. Whether the circuit court improperly placed the burden of proof on the Estate.
[¶20.] In 1989, the Legislature adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act
[¶21.] It is undisputed that Kathryn, as the party seeking to avoid enforcement of the Agreement, has the burden of proof at trial. Both
[¶22.] Nevertheless, the Estate claims that “the manner in which [the court] conducted the trial shows that this was little more than lip service” because the court “required the Estate to present its case first” and then demanded “justifications for lines of questioning” by the Estate when it asked about matters “Kathryn had previously asserted or might assert.” In response, Kathryn contends the Estate waived its right to have this Court review this issue. At the beginning of trial, counsel for Kathryn asked the court “who would you like to go first[,]” and the court replied, “I think the Estate should go first.” The Estate did not object or otherwise question the court‘s decision.
[¶23.] As this Court has often stated, “[w]e will not review a matter on appeal unless proper objection was made before the [circuit] court. Objections must be made to the [circuit] court to allow it to correct its mistakes.” Halbersma v. Halbersma, 2009 S.D. 98, ¶ 29, 775 N.W.2d 210, 219–20 (alterations in original) (quoting Rogen v. Monson, 2000 S.D. 51, ¶ 15 n.2, 609 N.W.2d 456, 460 n.2). Because the Estate did not object or raise the issue it now identifies on appeal, the Estate failed to preserve for review its claim that the circuit court in effect improperly shifted the burden to the Estate by the manner in which it conducted the trial. It is important to note, however, that this is not a case in which the circuit court failed to apply the burden of proof to the proper party. It is apparent from the record that the parties and the court were, before and during the trial, operating under the same view that Kathryn had the burden of proof. Although the Estate was directed to proceed first with its witnesses, the Estate was allowed to examine the witnesses in response to Kathryn‘s counsel‘s questions,
2. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement.
[¶24.] The Estate contends that the circuit court erred in finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement because, in the Estate‘s view, “when the law is correctly applied to the facts of this case, the only possible result is the validation of the Agreement.” In particular, the Estate contends that Kathryn‘s ignorance of the impact or meaning of the Agreement is insufficient to render her signature involuntary in light of the fact she did not claim or present evidence to support that she lacked the mental capacity to enter into the Agreement. The Estate further asserts that her lack of independent counsel would not invalidate her consent because she was aware Haberstick did not represent her and she declined Paul‘s offer to obtain an attorney for her. Finally, according to the Estate, because Kathryn‘s fear that Paul would end their relationship if she did not sign at that meeting was subjective and unprovoked, Kathryn could not establish that Paul coerced her or that her consent to the Agreement was the product of duress or undue influence.
[¶25.] In response, Kathryn claims that the circuit court correctly found that “the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement led to her involuntarily signing the agreement.” In particular, she notes that Paul was “a millionaire farmer” and she was a “woman with an 8th grade education who was in her 60s and had amassed $30,000 in assets of which $20,000 was a jointly owned car purchased by Paul Eichstadt.” She further relies on the evidence that while the two had discussed marriage, they did not discuss a premarital agreement. She also notes that Paul lied when he told Haberstick that she had indicated earlier that she did not want to hire her own attorney to review the Agreement. Focusing on the estimated duration of the meeting in Haberstick‘s office—10 to 15 minutes—Kathryn contends that she “had to process the betrayal or subterfuge by Paul, cover for a lie by Paul to his attorney, assess and maneuver through Paul‘s angst, evidenced by his pacing and tone, give her financial standing, determine what a premarital agreement was and what its ramifications are and then how it would affect her currently as well as possibly decades down the road and finally decide what the consequences would be if she didn‘t sign the agreement.” In her view, considering her “limited education, [the] vast disparity in bargaining power and likely an undeserved sense of loyalty, protection and trust in her significant other[,]” it was no surprise “she chose the option that kept the person in the power role of their relationship happy, which in turn kept a roof over her head.”
[¶26.] The term voluntary is not defined in
[¶27.] On appeal, the Estate focuses particularly on this language from Smid. In its view, because Kathryn had the capacity to contract, it must be presumed that she knew the terms of the Agreement and assented to them. The Estate further contends that absent evidence of duress, fraud, undue influence, or mistake—the statutory grounds under which a contract is voidable—Kathryn cannot prove that she executed the Agreement involuntarily and thus the circuit court erred in invalidating the Agreement.1
[¶28.] The Estate‘s argument intermingles various defenses that may be raised under general contract principles with the governing statutory requirement of voluntariness at issue in this appeal. Under
[¶29.] In fact, the Court‘s further analysis in Smid illustrates that a determination of voluntariness of a waiver under
[¶30.] Other courts have referred to the voluntariness inquiry as one examining the procedural fairness of the premarital agreement. See Andrew B. v. Addie B., 494 P.3d 522, 529–30 (Alaska 2021) (procedural fairness looks at whether the agreement was freely entered into); In re Marriage of Shanks, 758 N.W.2d 506, 512 (Iowa 2008) (same); In re Estate of Wolhar, C.A. No. 12860–MG, 2018 WL 721417, at *4 (Del. Ch. February 6, 2018) (same); In re Marriage of Bonds, 5 P.3d 815, 826 (Cal. 2000) (same). Courts have also, in the context of premarital agreements, identified multiple considerations that bear on the question whether a person voluntarily executed a premarital agreement. Those include: “the coercion that may arise from the proximity of execution of the agreement to the wedding, or from surprise in the presentation of the agreement; the presence or absence of independent counsel or of an opportunity to consult independent counsel; inequality of bargaining power—in some cases indicated by the relative age and sophistication of the parties; whether there was full disclosure of assets; and the parties’ understanding of the rights being waived under the agreement or at least their awareness of the intent of the agreement.” Bonds, 5 P.3d at 824–25; accord Mamot v. Mamot, 813 N.W.2d 440, 447 (Neb. 2012); Wolhar, 2018 WL 721417, at *4.
[¶31.] The majority of the Court in Smid declared, in response to the dissent‘s suggestion that specific factors similar to those quoted above should be applied to the question of voluntariness, that “our case law already has a standard for determining whether a postnuptial agreement should be enforced.” 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 18, 756 N.W.2d at 8. Although the Court did not adopt the list of factors suggested by the dissent, a review of the Court‘s analysis in Smid reveals that the Court in fact considered some of these factors when determining whether the totality of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement supported that it was executed voluntarily.3 In particular, the Smid
scrutiny because of the confidential relationship between husband and wife.” Smid, 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 22, 756 N.W.2d at 8.
[¶32.] Here, consistent with this Court‘s past cases, the circuit court quoted language from prior decisions concerning the validity of such agreements and noted that the nature of the relationship between the contracting parties warrants giving the agreements close scrutiny. The circuit court thereafter examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding Kathryn‘s execution of the Agreement. In particular, the court found that Kathryn was unaware that Paul had hired Haberstick to draft the Agreement. She was also unaware, when Paul asked her to go for a car ride on July 17, 2003, that he intended to take her to Haberstick‘s office to execute the Agreement. The court considered important the fact that Kathryn, who had limited education, did not understand the legal terms in the Agreement and that the entire meeting at the attorney‘s office took only 15 minutes. The court also found that Paul was the controlling person in the relationship and made all of the decisions, including when they would get married. Although Paul told Kathryn, while at Haberstick‘s office, that he would pay for an attorney if she wanted to consult one, the court entered the following finding: “I believe her when she says she was fearful of how he might react if she delayed, tried to negotiate changes or refused to sign his Agreement.”
[¶33.] The court further noted that “Paul‘s attorney did not go through the Agreement with Kathryn explaining the pertinent provisions after she said she trusted Paul and did not need to consult with an attorney.” The Estate, however, takes issue with this finding, asserting that the court in effect required Haberstick to also represent Kathryn. The Estate contends this would violate
[¶34.] We are not persuaded by the Estate‘s contentions. The circuit court did not suggest that Haberstick should have acted as Kathryn‘s counsel when she opted not to hire her own attorney; it merely considered, in assessing whether Kathryn understood the import of the Agreement, whether the terms were explained to her. In that regard, a lack of explanation by Haberstick (as opposed to a lack of advice) is relevant. Moreover, contrary to the Estate‘s view, the court‘s invalidation of the Agreement did not hinge on the fact that Haberstick did not explain the relevant terms to Kathryn. Rather, the court properly considered this fact along with all the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Agreement.
[¶35.] Here, the circuit court noted in its memorandum opinion, which was incorporated in the court‘s findings and conclusions,
attorney drafting the agreement during which the property at issue and the husband‘s desired disposition for each of his assets were fully discussed. See id. ¶¶ 5–8, 756 N.W.2d at 4–5.
[¶36.] Further, the circuit court found in Smid that the wife knew and understood her husband‘s intended wish that the marital home (the property the wife claimed she did not voluntarily waive her statutory rights to) go to his children, and that she could live there as long as she wished but would have to pay for the upkeep while living there. Id. ¶ 23, 756 N.W.2d at 9. Also, when rejecting the wife‘s argument that she did not know what her rights as a surviving spouse were and that those should have been explained to her, the Court in Smid relied on the fact that although the husband‘s attorney did not specifically explain what each right meant, the attorney “did go through the entire document in [the wife‘s] presence” and “she at least heard she had these rights and was giving up these rights.” Id. ¶ 22 n.6, 756 N.W.2d at 9 n.6.
[¶37.] As to the general principle that “one who accepts a contract is conclusively presumed to know its contents and to assent to them,” see Smid, 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 17, 756 N.W.2d at 7, it is important to note, as the circuit court did here, that this principle does not apply when there is wrongful conduct by another contracting party,4 see id. Accord Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass‘n, 514 N.W.2d 693, 697 (S.D. 1994) (remanding for trial plaintiff‘s negligence suit after applying the legal principle that consent to a release is not valid if the release instrument was misrepresented or there was fraudulent or overreaching conduct; evidence existed that the plaintiff was unaware she was signing release because plaintiff‘s softball coach told the players that they needed to sign a roster before they could play and did not explain the roster‘s release of liability). The circuit court‘s findings reflect the troubling manner in which Paul obtained Kathryn‘s consent to the Agreement. Knowing that she trusted him to take care of her, Paul kept the Agreement secret until the day of signing. He then misrepresented to his attorney that Kathryn had previously reviewed the Agreement and that she did not want to consult her own attorney. According to Kathryn‘s undisputed testimony, Paul then paced the floor as she skimmed, and ultimately
[¶38.] As the Court in Smetana explained, “[t]he validity of an antenuptial agreement is to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case.” 2007 S.D. 5, ¶ 10, 726 N.W.2d at 892 (quoting Ryken v. Ryken, 461 N.W.2d 122, 125 (S.D. 1990)). More importantly, under the clearly erroneous standard of review, the question is not whether on the evidence presented we would have made the same findings as the circuit court.5 Rather, we can only find clear error when, “after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Estate of Gaaskjolen, 2020 S.D. 17, ¶ 18, 941 N.W.2d 808, 813 (citation omitted).
[¶39.] From our review of the record, the circuit court‘s findings regarding Paul‘s conduct and other related circumstances are not clearly erroneous. Moreover, the circuit court, after hearing and observing Kathryn‘s testimony, found her version of the events to be credible. See In re Ricard Family Tr., 2016 S.D. 64, ¶ 15, 886 N.W.2d 326, 330 (“We afford great deference to the circuit court‘s ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.“). Thus, we cannot say that we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the court erred when it found that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement. As such, the Estate has not established clear error, and we affirm the circuit court‘s order declaring the Agreement void and unenforceable on this basis.
3. Whether the circuit court erred in determining that the Agreement is unconscionable.
[¶40.] Under
(2) The waiver was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the waiver, the surviving spouse:
- (i) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the decedent;
- (ii) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the decedent beyond the disclosure provided; and
- (iii) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the decedent.”
(Emphasis added.) Similarly, under
The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:
- (i) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;
- (ii) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial
obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and - (iii) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.”
(Emphasis added.)
[¶41.] The Estate contends that in determining that the Agreement is unconscionable, the circuit court improperly relied on the fact that “Kathryn received no consideration.” The Estate notes under
[¶42.] The Estate is correct that consideration is not necessary to validate a premarital agreement.
[¶43.] However, the Estate further challenges the circuit court‘s determination that the Agreement is unconscionable because the property Paul sought to protect had been obtained long before his marriage to Kathryn and Kathryn offered no evidence that she contributed to the accumulation of any of Paul‘s assets. Alternatively, the Estate asserts that even if the Agreement is deemed unconscionable, it is valid because the court did not apply the relevant statutory language requiring additional findings with respect to the financial disclosures. The Estate asserts such requisite findings could not be made here because the nature and extent of Paul‘s property was fairly disclosed to Kathryn prior to her signing the Agreement.
[¶44.] The circuit court did not identify, in either its memorandum decision or its conclusions of law, on which facts it was relying in determining that the Agreement is unconscionable. The court also did not examine whether the nature and extent of Paul‘s property was fairly disclosed to Kathryn prior to her signing the Agreement. Rather, the court‘s conclusion of law simply states that “[t]he agreement executed on July 17, 2003 between Kathryn Bergeson and Paul Eichstadt was unconscionable” without explaining why.6 (Emphasis added.)
[¶45.] Even if we assume that the Agreement‘s terms are unconscionable, the
[¶46.] Here, the record reveals that prior to the meeting at Haberstick‘s office, Paul had prepared, with the help of his accountant and Haberstick, a document itemizing Paul‘s assets and liabilities and listing their approximate valuations. At trial, the deposition testimony from Paul‘s accountant was offered. This testimony explained the calculations the accountant provided for Paul‘s financial disclosure statement and how certain discounts were made because assets were held in Paul‘s first wife‘s irrevocable trust. Also, Paul did not own any land. The land he farmed was owned by a limited liability company, and Paul‘s revocable trust held a 49% interest in the limited liability company, while Vanieda‘s irrevocable trust also held a 49% interest in the company, and Paul and Vanieda‘s children owned the remaining interest.
[¶47.] Kathryn did not contend at trial, nor does she on appeal, that Paul omitted property from the list. See id. ¶ 45, 694 N.W.2d at 295 (noting that the wife did not identify any issue with the financial disclosure that would suggest it failed to provide her with a “reasonable approximation” of the husband‘s net worth). Rather, at trial, Kathryn attempted to discredit the valuation of Paul‘s assets based on a balance sheet Paul submitted to a bank in August 2002 for financing related to his farming operation.7 But the circuit court did not find that Paul‘s financial disclosure was inaccurate or that the balance sheet more accurately reflected Paul‘s financial worth. In fact, despite the statutory directive that a determination of unconscionability must include findings regarding a party‘s knowledge of the relevant property and financial obligations, the circuit court did not make any findings regarding the financial disclosures.
[¶48.] Nevertheless, the issue of unconscionability is a matter of law, and from our review of the record, the undisputed evidence established that Kathryn was aware at the time she signed the Agreement that Paul‘s financial worth far exceeded hers. Because the circuit court did not determine (and nothing in the record would support a determination) that Paul failed to provide a fair and reasonable financial disclosure at the time Kathryn signed the Agreement or that she did not, or could not, have obtained adequate knowledge of Paul‘s property and financial obligations,8 the circuit court erred in invalidating
[¶49.] Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
[¶50.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and MYREN, Justice, concur.
[¶51.] KERN, Justice, concurs in part and dissents in part.
[¶52.] SALTER, Justice, concurs in part and dissents in part.
KERN, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶53.] I agree with the majority opinion‘s conclusions that the circuit court did not improperly place the burden of proof on the Estate and that the circuit court erred in determining that the Agreement is unconscionable. However, I write to express my view that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement.
[¶54.] Although the majority opinion discusses Smid in depth, it neglects the underlying basic principle at play in that case: “[t]o permit a party, when sued on a written contract, to admit that [s]he signed it . . . but did not read it or know its stipulations would absolutely destroy the value of all contracts.” 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 38, 756 N.W.2d at 13-14 (quoting LPN Tr. v. Farrar Outdoor Advert., Inc., 1996 S.D. 97, ¶ 13, 552 N.W.2d 796, 799). The majority opinion concludes that the circuit court did not err in finding that Kathryn‘s signature was not voluntary. This conclusion is based on Kathryn‘s lack of knowledge about the Agreement before the meeting at Haberstick‘s office, not understanding the terms in the Agreement when she signed it, Paul being the controlling person in their relationship, and Kathryn having been fearful of what would happen to their relationship if she refused to sign the Agreement that day. However, all things considered, the Agreement is a written contract signed by Kathryn without inducement to sign arising from fraud, misrepresentation, or other wrongful acts by another contracting party. These facts alone should render Kathryn‘s signature voluntary in accordance with Smid.
[¶55.] Additionally, the majority in Smid expressly rejected the use of specific factors to evaluate whether parties voluntarily entered into a postnuptial agreement. Id. ¶ 18, 756 N.W.2d at 8. And as the majority opinion acknowledges, this Court “did not adopt the list of factors suggested by the dissent” in Smid. Ante, ¶ 31 (opinion of the Court). This Court has clearly rejected a factor-based approach to determine whether a party signed a contract voluntarily. Thus, the majority opinion‘s reliance on other states’ laws regarding a factor-based voluntariness test is an implicit abrogation of the Smid rationale—a result which neither party to this appeal is requesting. Instead, this issue should be analyzed using a totality of the circumstances approach, as the parties have briefed and as the law requires, considering whether, under all the facts, Kathryn‘s signature was voluntary.
[¶56.] Turning to the individual circuit court findings upon which the majority
[¶57.] Second, although Kathryn did not fully understand the terms of the Agreement, in that she did not know what rights she was waiving or what an elective share meant, her lack of full knowledge of the facts and law is insufficient to establish that she signed the Agreement involuntarily. The surviving spouse in Smid made the same argument, and this Court rejected it, quoting the general rule that “one who accepts a contract is conclusively presumed to know its contents and to assent to them, in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or other wrongful act by another contracting party.” Smid, 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 17, 756 N.W.2d at 7 (quoting Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, Inc., 2000 S.D. 65, ¶ 28, 610 N.W.2d 787, 795).
[¶58.] Notably, although Kathryn did not understand the exact effect of the Agreement, she did understand that the purpose of the Agreement was for Paul to keep his property and for her to keep hers, and she knew Paul held assets far in excess of hers. When Kathryn first started working for Paul in 1988, she began to familiarize herself with his financial status by providing limited bookkeeping services for him. And after Vanieda‘s death, but before Kathryn and Paul were married, Kathryn again provided bookkeeping services for Paul. In fact, Paul‘s bookkeeping ledger from 2001 to 2004 was written entirely in Kathryn‘s handwriting. Yet, even with her detailed background knowledge of Paul‘s financial condition, Kathryn did not ask a single question during the meeting in Haberstick‘s office before signing the Agreement. Furthermore, the circuit court did not determine that Kathryn lacked or could not have had adequate knowledge of the nature and extent of Paul‘s property prior to signing the Agreement.
[¶59.] Third, the circuit court found, and the record supports, that Kathryn was given time to review the Agreement with no time limits placed upon her, and Paul told her he would pay for an attorney for her if she wanted to consult one. While the circuit court relied on Kathryn‘s eighth-grade education as evidence of her lack of understanding, the court ignored the undisputed evidence that Kathryn obtained her GED in 2001. In her testimony at trial, and in her written submissions to the circuit court, Kathryn explained that she only skimmed the document before signing it even though she did not understand some of the terms in the Agreement. Such a decision, while unfortunate in hindsight, does not support a finding of involuntariness. See Smid, 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 38, 756 N.W.2d at 13-14 (providing that ignorance of the contents of an agreement or a mistake because of a failure to understand the terms before signing are not sufficient to render the agreement involuntary); see also Hafner v. Hafner, 295 N.W.2d 567, 569-71 (Minn. 1980) (upholding a premarital agreement despite the fact that the wife was not told of her rights and had limited formal education).
[¶60.] Finally, even accepting that Paul was the controlling person in the couple‘s relationship, Kathryn‘s own testimony indisputably reflects that she did not depend on Paul for her livelihood. She twice ended her relationship with him and moved into her own apartment and obtained employment. There is no evidence in the record that Kathryn would have been unable to support herself had she not signed the Agreement and had Paul ended their relationship as a result. Also of note, when Paul presented Kathryn with the Agreement, the two had not yet set a wedding date. Thus, Kathryn‘s signature cannot be said to have been motivated by avoiding the embarrassment that could result from having to cancel existing wedding plans.
[¶61.] In Sailer v. Sailer, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld a premarital agreement under circumstances somewhat similar to those at issue here. 764 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2009). In Sailer, the couple signed a premarital agreement approximately two weeks before their wedding, and when the husband filed for divorce approximately 13 years later, the wife argued that she did not voluntarily execute the premarital agreement. Id. at 449. She acknowledged that she had received a draft of the document a month before she signed the agreement and had “looked over it” but asserted that she did not hire independent counsel to review it because she could not afford counsel. Id. at 450. She testified that she signed the agreement because she wanted her husband to trust her. Id. at 451.
[¶62.] In upholding the agreement, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined that, from the wife‘s testimony, she failed to meet her burden of proving that the agreement was not executed voluntarily. Id. at 453. In particular, the court referred to the wife‘s testimony that “she had the document and had the opportunity to examine its contents well in advance of its execution,” and she was aware of the disparity in the parties’ assets when she signed the agreement. Id. Because her desire to marry and have her husband‘s trust did not establish the necessary “undue pressure to sign the document,” the court concluded that, under the circumstances presented, she executed it voluntarily. Id.
[¶63.] Although Kathryn did not have a month to review the Agreement like the wife in Sailer, she admitted that Paul offered to pay for an attorney for her, and no time limit was placed on her review of the Agreement prior to signing. In light of Kathryn‘s undisputed testimony that she declined the offer to obtain her own counsel, chose only to skim the Agreement, and chose to sign the Agreement because she trusted Paul to take care of her and did not want him to end their relationship, the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Kathryn did not voluntarily sign the Agreement.
SALTER, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶64.] I believe the circuit court erred in its legal determination that the premarital agreement here is unenforceable. The Court correctly notes that the circuit court failed to apply any legal standard en route to its unconscionability conclusion, and I join that part of the Court‘s opinion. However, the circuit court also failed to apply an accurate standard to test voluntariness
[¶65.] Voluntary means that the act was taken intentionally and is a product of a person‘s free will. See In re Estate of Smid, 2008 S.D. 82, ¶ 17, 756 N.W.2d 1, 8 (affirming the circuit court‘s enforcement of a postnuptial agreement noting “[t]here is no evidence that [the challenging spouse] was forced to sign the waiver; [the challenging spouse] admits as much.“); see also Piper v. Young, 2019 S.D. 65, 36, 936 N.W.2d 793, 807 (in the context of plea agreements, a “voluntary [plea] . . . is by definition not the result of threats, force or promises made apart from the plea agreement, or any other form of coercion.“) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting State v. Nikolaev, 2000 S.D. 142, ¶ 10, 619 N.W.2d 244, 247). Though the standard implicates the unique facts of each case, the ultimate factual inquiry must remain focused upon voluntariness and whether a person acted purposefully and intentionally to exercise her own free will.9
[¶66.] Here, the Court discusses, but does not settle on a controlling definition of voluntary. As a consequence, the Court confuses the circumstances Kathryn describes with sufficient evidence of involuntariness. At most, this testimony establishes that Kathryn perceived that Paul wanted her to sign the premarital agreement, but this is self-evident—Paul engaged Haberstick to draft the Agreement in the first place.
[¶67.] More specific to the voluntariness inquiry, however, Kathryn testified that she was not threatened or coerced, and though she said she was surprised, she never claimed that signing the Agreement was not her own decision. In truth, Kathryn‘s testimony establishes only that she signed the premarital agreement because she believed Paul wanted her to sign it. But without more, that does not make it involuntary even though Kathryn may regret that decision now, nearly twenty years later.
[¶68.] Viewing voluntariness as an essential exercise of Kathryn‘s free will, the unflattering evidence of Paul‘s personality, the lack of notice before signing the premarital agreement, no separate counsel, and Kathryn‘s level of education exist in this case as an amalgam of freestanding factors, not as a means of guiding a factfinder to the ultimate determination of voluntariness. Indeed, Kathryn prevails here because more of the factors favored her, not because she satisfied a definitive expression of voluntariness.
[¶69.] Beyond this case, the Court‘s decision may well impact the settled expectations of parties who have executed premarital agreements believing them to be binding. Under the Court‘s analysis, however, a surviving party can successfully challenge the agreement‘s enforceability simply with evidence that the deceased spouse exercised some degree of influence over the surviving spouse‘s decision to sign. But generally speaking, parties execute these agreements for good and important