Internet Bride Not Bound By Prenuptial Agreement That Was Never Translated

Tennessee case summary on prenuptial agreements in divorce.

The husband and wife in this Tennessee divorce case were married in 2009. Their courtship began over the Internet when the husband lived in Florida and the wife lived in Colombia. The husband traveled to Colombia to meet his future bride, at which time the husband did not speak Spanish and the wife did not speak English. They relied upon one of the wife’s neighbors to translate, and decided to get married.

Prior to the marriage, the husband returned to Florida, where he hired an attorney to draft an antenuptial agreement. He returned to Colombia for the wedding, and immediately before the wedding, presented the agreement to his future wife. She asked someone to read it and explain it to her, after which she signed. The wife’s visa was delayed, and she was not able to come to the United States for eighteen months. They moved to Tennessee, and later back to Florida. They separated in 2012, at which time the wife returned to Tennessee to reside in a domestic violence safe house.

The husband filed for divorce in 2013, and asked the Tennessee trial court to honor the antenuptial agreement.

At trial, both parties testified as to the circumstances surrounding the agreement. The husband hired an interpreter, which the wife described as a young boy who did not read the agreement, but merely looked at the front and back pages and told her it was “something about marriage.”

The trial court found the agreement unenforceable, and classified some of the parties’ property as marital property and divided it. The husband was also ordered to pay transitional alimony and attorney’s fees. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The court first noted that the agreement stated that it would be governed by Florida law. But the appeals court did not deem this to be important, since both Tennessee and Florida law were similar. The court noted that to be enforceable, such an agreement must be freely executed.

In this case, the court had concluded that the agreement was unenforceable because the wife never received any kind of explanation and that the parties did not deal at “arms length.” The husband argued that if the wife had desired, she could have had the document translated over the Internet. But the lower court did not find this acceptable.

The appeals court agreed. It noted that the husband had unilaterally procured the agreement and presented it the day before (or possibly the day of) the wedding, with no prior discussion. The husband did not provide a Spanish version, nor did he advise her to talk to an attorney. The interpreter was unable to translate it completely.

After finding the agreement unenforceable, the appeals court went on to review the property division and also concluded that the lower court had acted appropriately.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

No. M2014-02370-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

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