Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's grant of partial summary judgment enforcing a prenuptial agreement and denying the wife alimony. The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the husband disclosed his income before execution of the agreement, as required under the Scherer test. The court reversed the grant of partial summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment enforcing the prenuptial agreement when the evidence conflicted regarding whether Husband disclosed his income before execution.
- Whether summary judgment may resolve disputed factual issues concerning the first prong of the Scherer antenuptial-agreement enforceability test.
- Whether a prospective spouse has a duty to inquire into the other spouse's finances that can substitute for the affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure.
Holdings
- Partial summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Husband disclosed his income to Wife before she executed the prenuptial agreement.
- Wife's testimony that she did not recall Husband disclosing his income created a genuine issue of material fact when construed in her favor.
- A purported duty of inquiry does not replace or negate the affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure imposed by Scherer on parties entering into an antenuptial agreement.
Key quotations
“On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain.” (584)
“Accordingly, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Husband disclosed his income to Wife prior to execution of the agreement.” (585)
“In short, the "duty of inquiry" envisioned by [Husband] is incompatible with the duty of full and fair disclosure recognized by Scherer and its progeny.” (585)
Factual background
Before their 2000 marriage, Richard Henry Quarles and Suzanne Elizabeth Quarles entered into a prenuptial agreement under which they waived alimony in the event of divorce. The agreement did not disclose Husband's income, although Husband testified that he disclosed it before the agreement was signed. Wife testified that she did not recall Husband disclosing his yearly income at all. Because income was material to Wife's decision to waive alimony, the Supreme Court concluded that the conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact.
Procedural history
The parties married in 2000 after entering a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony. Husband filed for divorce in 2007, and Wife counterclaimed. Husband moved for partial summary judgment to enforce the agreement. The trial court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding enforceability and entered an order effectively granting partial summary judgment for Husband. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed because a genuine factual dispute existed concerning disclosure of Husband's income before execution of the agreement.