Prenuptial Agreement Terms Governed By Law of State Where Signed

Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook by Miles Mason, Sr. available on Amazon

Tennessee case summary on pre-nuptial agreement enforcement.

Angie Renee Larsen v. George Giannakoulias

The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case met in 2006 and were married in 2008.  They had three children.

The husband had graduated from the University of South Florida in 2002 and had a sporadic work history.  He worked as a realtor in Florida from 2002 through 2008.

The wife had graduated from the University of Wyoming with a degree in math.  She later graduated from the University of Mississippi medical school, and completed a fellowship in 2010.  When the parties met, she was a general surgeon and had  her medical practice in Nashville.  After the parties’ first child was born, she wound down her practice, and the relocated to Florida.

In 2008, the parties decided to marry.  The wife testified that she would not have married without a pre-nuptial agreement.  They downloaded a form from the internet, and they executed it in New Mexico before their marriage in Colorado.

In 2015, the wife filed for divorce.  After deciding parenting issues, it divided the property.  The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court.  Among the issues he raised, he argued that the trial court erred in holding that he was precluded from alimony under the prenuptial agreement.

After addressing other issues, the appeals court turned to the prenuptial agreement.  The husband argued that the trial court had erred by applying Tennessee law to the agreement, when it had been signed in New Mexico.  The husband argued that New Mexico law should have been used to interpret the agreement.  Under New Mexico law, parties are limited in waiving claims for spousal support.

The appeals court pointed out that Tennessee follows the rule of lex loci contractus, meaning that a contract is governed by the place where it is executed.  By applying this rule, the appeals court agreed with the husband that the lower court had improperly used Tennessee law to interpret the agreement.

However, the appeals court went on to conclude that the husband was not necessarily entitled to alimony.  This was a decision that would need to be made by the trial court, applying New Mexico law, and the court remanded the case for that determination.

After addressing other property issues, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings.

No. M2017-00428-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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