Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed the denial of enforcement of a post-nuptial agreement in a divorce proceeding. The Court held that the agreement was unenforceable because the husband’s promise to destroy it, coupled with the confidential relationship between the spouses and his later attempt to enforce it, supported a finding of fraud. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the parties' post-nuptial agreement.
- Whether Husband's promise to destroy or not enforce the post-nuptial agreement, coupled with his retention and subsequent enforcement of it, constituted fraud rendering the agreement unenforceable.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the post-nuptial agreement unenforceable.
- Husband's promise to tear up or not enforce the agreement, together with his retention of it and later attempt to enforce it, constituted sufficient evidence of fraud to render the post-nuptial agreement unenforceable.
Key quotations
“While “the mere failure to comply with a promise to perform an act in the future is not fraud in a legal sense ... when the failure to perform the promised act is coupled with the present intention not to perform, fraud, in the legal sense, is present.”” (705)
“This evidence — the prolonged retention of the Agreement that Husband promised to destroy as soon as Wife signed it, coupled with the subsequent attempt to enforce it — though slight, is sufficient to establish the existence of fraud, especially here, in light of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the Agreement.” (706)
Factual background
The parties had been married for approximately thirty-four years when they signed a post-nuptial agreement favorable to Husband concerning marital property upon divorce or death. Wife testified that Husband induced her to sign by promising that he would not divorce her and would tear up the agreement, making her believe the document was merely a symbolic expression of love and would never be enforced. Husband retained the agreement for nearly six months while the parties attempted reconciliation and then produced it for enforcement after Wife sought a divorce.
Procedural history
Wife initiated divorce proceedings after the parties had executed a post-nuptial agreement concerning disposition of marital property. Husband moved to enforce the agreement, but the trial court denied the motion after finding the agreement unenforceable because Husband had induced Wife to sign it by promising to destroy it and not enforce it. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted an interlocutory appeal and affirmed.