Ever wondered what a real postnup dispute looks like in the “wild?” Well, buckle up because we’ve got some stories to share. The cases below are real couples who got divorced with a postnup, and all of the agreements were upheld by a court. Meaning one spouse argued the postnup should be thrown out for one reason or another, and then the court disagreed and said, “Nope! You are bound to the terms of this document!” It gives hope to those couples who want a postnup but are concerned about the enforceability of the document. Let’s get into it!
Postnup upheld in Connecticut – 2020
In Zhou v. Zhang, the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of a postnuptial agreement. The couple, both highly educated Ivy League professionals, had entered into a postnuptial agreement in 2012 with full disclosure of assets and legal representation. The agreement detailed alimony, property division, and a revocation clause. The couple eventually filed for divorce and ultimately signed an agreement to revoke the 2012 postnup.
The wife later argued that the revocation was enforceable and the postnuptial agreement was unenforceable. She argued that the postnup was unenforceable because she signed it under the threat of divorce, she didn’t understand its complex terms, and the terms of the agreement were unconscionable.
The Supreme Court disagreed with her and held that the revocation agreement was NOT enforceable, but the postnuptial agreement was enforceable. They explained that the wife had a high level of education and an attorney, so there was no evidence of coercion or duress to sign it. She also had more than enough sophistication to understand the agreement and had legal advice as well. And because there were no significant unforeseen changes in circumstances, like job loss or serious illness, the agreement was not considered unconscionable. The reason the revocation was unenforceable was that the husband signed the revocation agreement with the understanding that it would only be binding if the parties reached a complete settlement agreement during mediation.
Bottom line? Just because you are under the “threat” of divorce and feel pressured to sign a postnup doesn’t automatically invalidate it. And a postnup won’t be automatically deemed unenforceable just because it’s unfair–there will need to be other circumstances like job loss to make it to the level of unconscionable and unenforceable.
Yun Zhou v. Hao Zhang, 334 Conn. 601 (2020)
Postnup upheld in New York – 2021
This case involved a husband who challenged the validity of a postnuptial agreement that favored his wife, who had considerably more assets. He argued that the agreement was unconscionable and resulted from overreaching, especially since he lacked legal representation during its creation.
However, the court disagreed with the husband’s claims and upheld the postnuptial agreement. The court emphasized that the agreement clearly stated the wife’s significant assets, and the husband had knowingly and willingly waived his rights to those assets even though he didn’t hire an attorney. Furthermore, the agreement contained mutual waivers to each other’s property, demonstrating a degree of fairness on its face.
The court also considered the couple’s financial practices during their marriage. They had kept their finances separate, and the husband was not reliant on his wife for financial support. This showed a level of financial independence that supported the notion that the agreement reflected their established financial relationship. Therefore, even though the wife ended up with a larger share of the assets after the divorce, the court did not find it shockingly unfair or unconscionable to maintain the existing financial arrangement.
The takeaway? This case illustrates that just because there is an unequal division of assets in a postnuptial agreement does not mean it’s going to be set aside on that issue alone. While it is possible that a significant disparity in assets may raise questions about fairness, the court will analyze each situation on a case-by-case basis. In this case? It wasn’t unfair. Also, while the lack of legal representation for one party is a factor to consider, it was not enough in this case to invalidate a postnup in New York.
Hershkowitz v. Levy, 139 N.Y.S.3d 617 (2021)
Postnup upheld in Illinois – 2016
This case involved Jeffrey and Karen, a couple with a unique history. They had been married for 28 years, divorced in 2010, and then remarried in 2012. However, their second attempt at marriage quickly encountered difficulties, leading them to seek counseling.
Their marriage counselor suggested they create a postnuptial agreement to provide Karen with a sense of financial security. Jeffrey agreed to this suggestion and took the initiative to draft the agreement himself. In the postnup, he made substantial promises to Karen in the event of another divorce, including a large portion of his income, the family home, and other assets.
The couple went through several iterations of the agreement, with both Jeffrey and Karen actively participating in the revisions and suggesting changes. Eventually, they arrived at a final version that both signed. However, shortly after signing the postnuptial agreement, Karen filed for divorce. The divorce was finalized, and the postnuptial agreement was incorporated into the court’s final judgment, making its terms legally binding.
A few months after the divorce, Jeffrey had a change of heart. He filed a motion to set aside the divorce judgment, arguing that the postnuptial agreement was unfair and that he had been pressured into signing it.
Despite Jeffrey’s argument against the postnup, the court upheld the agreement. Although the agreement required him to permanently pay 30% of his gross income to Karen as alimony, the court conducted a thorough analysis and found it to be fair under the specific circumstances of their case. The court considered several factors:
- Length of prior marriage: The couple had a long prior marriage (28 years) during which Karen had not been part of the workforce, making her financially dependent on Jeffrey.
- Tax benefits: The alimony payments provided Jeffrey with tax advantages, offsetting some of the financial burden.
- Asset division: Jeffrey received more than half of their other marital assets, balancing out the alimony obligation.
The key takeaway? Postnup agreements are meant to be honored unless there are unreasonable circumstances. Courts will strive to uphold them, and spouses can’t just back out of an agreement later because it turns out to be less beneficial than they initially thought.
In re Marriage of Labuz, 2016 IL App (3d) 140990
A postnup upheld in Washington – 2009
A 2009 Washington state case shows us that just because you feel pressure to sign a postnup doesn’t mean it’s going to be invalidated one day. In this case, the husband was offered a significant share in his family’s car dealership, but only if the couple signed a postnuptial agreement. The wife, pregnant with their second child and in the midst of building a home, felt pressured to agree, fearing her husband’s disappointment and potential marital strain if she refused.
Despite her consulting with a lawyer and making some modifications to the agreement, the wife later claimed she was coerced into signing. However, the court disagreed, finding that she understood the agreement’s terms and that the pressure she felt did not rise to the level of illegal coercion. The court emphasized that the agreement provided her with alimony and a share of marital property, and she had benefited from the husband’s increased income due to the business acquisition.
Bottom line? While feeling pressure to sign a postnuptial agreement is understandable, it’s not automatically grounds for unenforceability. Courts will assess the overall circumstances, including the party’s understanding of the agreement, the nature of the pressure, and the fairness of the terms, to determine if it was truly signed under duress.
Rogers v. Rogers, 153 Wash. App. 1043 (2009)
Massachusetts postnup upheld – 2010
A very well-off Massachusetts couple (a combined net worth of $19 million) signed a postnuptial agreement after significant marital turbulence. They entered into this agreement after 19 years of marriage. The husband told the wife that in order to stay married, they had to sign the agreement. She agreed, though reluctantly. The contract provided the wife with $5 million and some asset appreciation upon divorce. Fast forward several years later, and they filed for divorce. The wife’s argument was that the postnup should be invalidated, in part, because it wasn’t fair to her. $5 million plus some appreciation was only a small part of the entire estate. The result? The court upheld the postnup and stated that postnups don’t need to be exactly 50-50 to be deemed fair and enforceable.
Takeaway? Again, as we’ve seen over and over, just because the postnup doesn’t provide for an equal distribution of assets doesn’t make it unenforceable.
Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, 929 N.E.2d 955 (2010)
The bottom line
One theme you can definitely take away from all of these cases is that postnups are enforceable, just because you sign something that you later don’t like doesn’t mean you can get out of it, even if the terms are unfair to you, and duress is hard to prove–just feeling pressured isn’t enough. So go sign that postnup and feel confident that the law has your back! Happy planning!
Nicole Sheehey is the Head of Legal Content at HelloPrenup, and an Illinois licensed attorney. She has a wealth of knowledge and experience when it comes to prenuptial agreements. Nicole has Juris Doctor from John Marshall Law School. She has a deep understanding of the legal and financial implications of prenuptial agreements, and enjoys writing and collaborating with other attorneys on the nuances of the law. Nicole is passionate about helping couples locate the information they need when it comes to prenuptial agreements. You can reach Nicole here: Nicole@Helloprenup.com
0 Comments