Wife May Have Been Rushed into Prenuptial Agreement

Tennessee case summary on prenuptial agreements in divorce.

Rhonda Sue Griffis Grubb v. James Wesley Grubb

The trial in this Roane County, Tennessee, case was held in two parts.  In the first half of the trial, the court ruled on the validity of the parties’ antenuptial agreement.  The other issues in the case were decided in the later portion of the trial.

At the time of their 2002 marriage, the husband was 22 years older than the wife.  The husband had a college degree, and the wife had her GED.  A few days before they were married, the husband took the wife to his family lawyer to sign the agreement.  The wife later testified that she did not fully understand it.  The attorney informed her that he was not acting as her attorney and that she should get independent legal advice, but she never did.

The agreement specified property that would remain separate property in the event of divorce, and also capped the husband’s alimony obligation at $100,000.

During the marriage, the parties had two children.  The wife was a homemaker, and the husband continued his business.  The wife filed for divorce in 2015.

In the first half of the trial, the court focused on the prenuptial agreement.  It heard the testimony of the parties, as well as the attorney who had drafted the agreement.  The attorney testified that he would never advise a person in the wife’s position to sign such an agreement.  But he also testified that he was working in the husband’s interest, and drafted the agreement to protect his interests, and also make sure the agreement would be enforceable.

After hearing the testimony, the trial court held that the bulk of the agreement was valid, and that the designations of property would be enforced.  However, it also held that the cap on alimony was unenforceable.  After trial, the husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  His issues included the ruling on the agreement.

The appeals court first analyzed whether there had been full and fair disclosure prior to signing the agreement.  The appeals court held that the lower court had not made sufficient findings on this important issue.  It noted, first of all, that there had been evidence that the wife had been rushed to sign the agreement.

The appeals court also noted that the wife had not been represented by a lawyer, and noted that this issue was compounded by the disparity in education between the parties.  The wife was only 20, had only a GED, and was financially dependent upon the husband.  The appeals court found that the trial court had not adequately addressed these points in its findings.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s order and remanded the case.  In doing so, it instructed the lower court to make sufficient factual findings and conclusions explaining its reasoning as to these factors.

No. E2016-01851-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2017).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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