Lack of Fair Disclosure Invalidates Prenuptial Agreement

Case Details

The plaintiff, husband, and defendant, wife, met in early 2002 through a dating service. They were engaged in June 2002, and because the husband had substantial assets while the wife had limited resources, they drafted a prenuptial agreement. During negotiations, both parties were represented by independent counsel, and they signed the prenuptial agreement in December 2002, four days before they were married. The husband filed for dissolution of the marriage in May 2008, citing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and sought enforcement of the prenuptial agreement.

The wife, however, challenged its enforceability, as the financial statement the husband provided prior to the agreement’s execution was an insufficient disclosure as to his income. In August 2008, the trial court concluded that the agreement was valid and enforceable, resulting in an appeal.

Reasonable Premarital Agreement

A premarital agreement or amendment is generally enforceable unless the party against whom enforcement proves one of four statutory scenarios. One such situation is that that before the agreement’s execution, the party was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the amount, character and value of property, financial obligations, and income of the other party. “Fair and reasonable disclosure” refers to the nature, extent, and accuracy of information that is disclosed, and the other party does not have independent knowledge of these financial circumstances. It is a duty of disclosure, not of inquiry.

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court did not find the plaintiff’s disclosure to be fair and reasonable. It explained that in his financial statement, the husband failed to identity net income from his real estate investments. More telling, the word “income” wasn’t even used anywhere in the financial disclosure. The court stated that even though the wife and her counsel did not question the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s disclosure before signing the prenuptial agreement, it was not her duty or burden to do so. The wife did not have independent knowledge of the husband’s earning capacity.

As such, the court found that the husband did not meet his burden to inform, and it was illogical and legally improper for the trial court to declare the prenuptial was legally enforceable. Therefore, the ruling was reversed, and the case remanded for reconsideration of all financial orders.

Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.

Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well. 

If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.