In re Marriage of Bernard, No. 80348-0
In re Marriage of Bernard, No. 80348-0 (case briefs and argument). How good is your prenup? Just don’t sign it at the last minute. Today by a 6-3 vote, with Justice Stephens writing the majority, the court invalidated a prenuptial agreement after finding it both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Thomas Bernard hired Gloria as an operations manager for his company. Three years later, the two began dating. Thomas proposed to Gloria but said he would require a prenuptial agreement – he was 55 and worth $25 million; she was 49 and had a net worth of $8,000. In January 2000 Thomas and his attorney began working on the prenup, but did not provide Gloria with a copy. Despite several suggestions to Gloria that she obtain independent counsel, she never hired a lawyer. Then 18 days before the wedding, Gloria received a draft of the prenup. A few weeks later Gloria met with an attorney, but the two received a new draft of the agreement that was substantially different than the previous version. The day before the wedding, Gloria’s lawyer identified major concerns with the agreement, and outlined these concerns in a letter. Concerned that Thomas would call off the wedding, Gloria signed the prenup, and the two signed a “side letter” agreeing to renegotiate the areas addressed by Gloria’s lawyer. This amendment was finalized a year after the wedding. In 2005, Gloria filed for divorce, and challenged the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement.
The Supreme Court used the long-standing two part analysis. First, the court determined that the agreement was substantively fair—that is, where the agreement makes fair and reasonable provision for the spouse not seeking enforcement. The court determined that the amended prenup made inadequate provisions for Gloria relative to Thomas’ means. Second, the court reviewed the procedural fairness of the agreement—whether the spouses fully disclosed the value of their property and whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily. The court took note fo several factors: that Gloria never saw a draft until days before the wedding; and changes to the draft agreement at the last minute; and the pressure Gloria felt to sign an agreement in order to avoid the embarrassment of delaying the wedding. The court determined that the “side letter” amendment did not cure the defects of the prenup, and invalidated it.
Justices Sanders, Fairhurst, and J. Johnson dissented, saying that while the prenuptial may have been substantively unfair, Gloria entered the agreement voluntarily and intelligently.
