Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court considered whether a postnuptial agreement waiving each spouse’s interests in the other’s property and estate was valid and enforceable. The court held that Arkansas’s premarital-agreement statute did not apply to postnuptial agreements and that the agreement should instead be analyzed under contract law. It affirmed the trial court’s finding that the agreement was fair, equitable, supported by consideration, and enforceable against the surviving spouse.
Holdings
- Arkansas's prenuptial-agreement statute applies by its plain terms only to agreements made before marriage and does not govern postnuptial agreements.
- Postnuptial agreements in Arkansas are not per se invalid and should initially be analyzed under ordinary contract-law principles, including competent parties, subject matter, legal consideration, mutual agreement, and mutual obligations.
- The postnuptial agreement was not unenforceable merely because Paula Stewart was not advised to obtain independent legal counsel.
- The parties' mutual waivers and releases of property and surviving-spouse rights constituted legally sufficient consideration, even though the consideration was not economically equal.
Questions Presented
- Whether Arkansas's prenuptial-agreement statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-406, applies to a postnuptial agreement.
- What legal prerequisites govern the validity and enforceability of a postnuptial agreement in Arkansas.
- Whether the particular postnuptial agreement was invalid because Paula Stewart lacked independent legal counsel, lacked understanding of the rights she relinquished, or received unequal consideration.
- Whether the mutual waivers and releases in the agreement supplied legally sufficient consideration.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- Rush v. Smith, 239 Ark. 706, 394 S.W.2d 613 (1965)(followed)
- Sims v. Roberts, 188 Ark. 1030, 68 S.W.2d 1001 (1934)(followed)
- Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Service, Inc., 361 Ark. 390, 206 S.W.3d 842 (2005)(followed)
- Department of Human Services and Child Welfare Agency Review Board v. Howard, 367 Ark. 55, 238 S.W.3d 1 (2006)(followed)
- Rose v. Arkansas State Plant Board, 363 Ark. 281, 213 S.W.3d 607 (2005)(followed)
- Dick v. State, 364 Ark. 133, 217 S.W.3d 778 (2005)(followed)
- Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004)(followed in part)
- Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 347 Ark. 89, 60 S.W.3d 428 (2001)(followed)
- Gray v. Gray, 352 Ark. 443, 101 S.W.3d 816 (2003)(followed)
- Peirce v. Peirce, 994 P.2d 193 (Utah 2000)(considered)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…