Tennessee Husband’s Objection to Post-nuptial Agreement Failed
Tennessee law case summary on post-nuptial agreements in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.
Jeffrey Paul Bengs v. Amy Dawn Bengs – Tennessee Divorce Post-nuptial Agreement.
The husband and wife were married in 1993. In 2010, they entered into a post-nuptial agreement containing a final disposition of their marital property. A week after making that agreement, they separated. About eleven months later, the husband filed for divorce in Rutherford County, Tennessee, and the wife filed a counter-complaint. The wife then filed a motion for a declaratory judgment that the post-nuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. The trial court agreed, and entered an order enforcing the agreement. The husband, who argued that the agreement was invalid, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the husband argued that the agreement was invalid for a number of reasons. First, he argued that the agreement was not sufficiently definite to be enforced, since it had not established a price for the sale of the marital residence, and had not established the length of time in which the wife could live in the residence prior to the sale. He also argued that the agreement was unfair, since it granted the wife the sole exclusive discretion over the possession and sale of the residence. The Court of Appeals disagreed with these arguments, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The Court of Appeals first noted that a post-nuptial agreement can be interpreted and enforced in the same manner as any other contract: There must be a meeting of the minds in mutual assent to the terms, it must be free from fraud or undue influence, and it must be sufficiently definite to be enforced. If the contract is valid and enforceable under these general provisions of contract law, then it should be affirmed.
The Court of Appeals held that the contract was sufficiently definite. The contract did refer to the possible sale of the residence, but made clear that the wife would reside in the property unless it was sold. If the wife did later sell the property, then the contract provided for the husband to receive half of the equity. Therefore, there was no requirement that the sale price be specified in the agreement. And because the wife was not required to sell the residence, the fact that she had discretion to do so did not make the agreement indefinite.
Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected the husband’s argument that the agreement was unfair or inequitable. The Court first noted that the husband had, in the agreement itself, specifically agreed that it was “fair, just and reasonable.” The Court also pointed out that the agreement was prepared by the husband’s attorney, and that both parties were provided for adequately. The Court found that an earlier case was distinguishable, because in the earlier case, an agreement had been invalidated because it was entered into under duress. The Court found the circumstances of this case to be “markedly different.” Under these circumstances, the Court found that the husband’s argument of unfairness was not supported by the record.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
M2012-01203-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more about post-nuptial agreements, see Tennessee Post-Nuptial Agreements after Marriage and/or Infidelity. Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC. Buy The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know, available on Amazon and Kindle. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
