BUETTNER VS. BUETTNER (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

In this case of first impression, the court held that antenuptial contracts settling property rights and alimony in the event of divorce are not per se void as contrary to public policy in Nevada. The court distinguished the line of authority voiding contracts that invite, promote, or encourage divorce - e.g., agreements not to contest a divorce, to procure one, or to conceal its true cause (Allen v. Allen, 150 So. 237 (Fla. 1933)), and agreements relieving a husband of his support duty for a fraction of a proper award (Crouch v. Crouch, 385 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. 1964)) - and found none applicable; there was no finding that the wife caused the divorce, and the record showed the husband committed the serious marital misconduct. Analogizing to antenuptial contracts settling property rights upon death, long held conducive to marital tranquility, and adopting the reasoning of Posner v. Posner, 233 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1970), the court held such divorce-related antenuptial contracts valid, subject to the courts' retained power to refuse enforcement where the agreement is unconscionable or obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, material nondisclosure, or duress. On the particular contract, the court held the trial court's finding that it was 'unfair and unjust' was merely conclusory and not binding, and the record - including the husband's own testimony that he entered the agreement freely, voluntarily, and knowingly to protect his separate estate for his children - revealed no fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, duress, or unconscionability. Reversed and remanded for enforcement of the agreement.

In plain language

Before marrying, John Buettner (whose separate property was worth roughly $400,000) and Stella signed a prenuptial (antenuptial) agreement. It provided that each gave up claims to the other's separate estate, that they would leave each other half of their property by will, and that if they divorced, Stella would receive the house and its furnishings and $500 per month for five years ($30,000), plus half of the community property. They married the same day. Months later John sued for divorce, claiming Stella had tricked him into signing the agreement. The trial court refused to enforce the agreement, calling it 'unfair and unjust' and 'in derogation of marriage' and contrary to public policy, and instead awarded Stella only a dining room set, a couch, and $2,000. Stella appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court decided two questions. First, are prenuptial agreements about property and support in the event of divorce automatically void as against public policy? The Court held they are not per se void; such agreements are valid if fair and properly made. (Agreements that actually invite or encourage divorce, or that let a husband cheaply escape his duty to support his wife, can be void, but this was not such a case - in fact, the husband, not the wife, committed the serious marital misconduct, including beating her.) Second, was this particular agreement unconscionable or unfairly obtained? The Court found it was not: the husband's own testimony showed he entered it freely, knowingly, and voluntarily to protect his separate property for his children, with no fraud, duress, or nondisclosure. The trial court's bare finding that the agreement was 'unfair and unjust' was merely conclusory. The Court reversed and remanded to enforce the agreement, while emphasizing that courts retain the power to refuse to enforce an antenuptial contract that is unconscionable or obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, material nondisclosure, or duress.