TN Widower Gets Share of Wife’s Estate Despite Prenuptial Agreement

Tennessee case summary on validity of prenuptial agreements.

In re Estate of Glenda Joyce Panter Hillis

The husband and wife in this Tennessee probate case were married in 1992.  Prior to the marriage, the wife presented the husband with an antenuptial agreement which stated that both parties waived claims of inheritance.  The agreement did not include a disclosure of the parties’ assets.

In 2010, the wife made a will which gave the husband a life estate in her real property and some personal property.  The will provided that the residue of the estate would go to her son.  She died in 2012, and the will was probated.  The husband made a claim for the spouse’s elective share.  He also sought to invalidate an earlier quitclaim deed to the son.

After a bench trial, the probate judge ruled that the antenuptial agreement was invalid because it did not contain a disclosure of assets, and also because it contained some contradictory provisions.  On the other hand, the court held that the quitclaim deed was valid.  Both parties appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The son argued that he should have had a jury trial of some issues, but the court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that a non-jury trial was appropriate.  The court also agreed with the lower court on the validity of the deed.

The appeals court devoted most of its opinion to the validity of the prenuptial agreement.  The court first held that there were no material contradictions, as the lower court had found.  The supposed contradictions were between the recitals of the agreement and the operative provisions.  The appeals court agreed that the document was inartfully drafted, but held that these contradictions did not invalidate the agreement.

But the lower court had also based its decision on the fact that the agreement did not include a disclosure of assets.  The appeals court agreed that this omission was fatal.  In Tennessee, a prenuptial agreement must be entered into freely and knowledgeably.  In this case, the appeals court agreed that the husband did not enter into the agreement knowledgeably because of the nondisclosure of assets.

The appeals court did note that full disclosure is not necessary in cases where one spouse already had superior knowledge of the other party’s assets.  But it held that this exception did not apply.  In fact, the husband had not been provided with any disclosure, and there was no evidence that he had independent knowledge.  The court noted that the husband first saw the agreement one day before the wedding, and didn’t have any independent counsel before signing it.  For that reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that the agreement was invalid.  Therefore, he was entitled to an elective share of his deceased wife’s estate.

After affirming, the Court of Appeals remanded the case.

No. M2015-00404-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Prenuptial Agreement: Pros and Cons in Tennessee Divorce Law.