Blige v. Blige
2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 208, 283 Ga. 65, 656 S.E.2d 822 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement is unenforceable if it results from the nondisclosure of a material fact. The party seeking to enforce the agreement bears the burden of proving they made a full and fair disclosure of their assets, and there is no corresponding duty on the other party to investigate their prospective spouse's financial status.
Facts:
- Meagan Taylor Blige and Willie Alonzo Blige had a child together in 1994 and planned to marry in 2000.
- Prior to the marriage, Mr. Blige owned 19.5 acres of land and had secretly accumulated $150,000 in cash.
- The day before the wedding, Mr. Blige took Ms. Blige to an attorney he had hired for her, where she was presented with a pre-drafted antenuptial agreement.
- Ms. Blige signed the agreement, which provided that Mr. Blige would retain the 19.5 acres and any structures on it as his separate property.
- Mr. Blige never disclosed the existence of the $150,000 in cash to Ms. Blige, which he intended to use to build a house on the property.
- While Ms. Blige knew Mr. Blige worked as a delivery truck driver, she did not live with him before the marriage and had no knowledge of the hidden cash from any source.
- After the wedding, Mr. Blige used the concealed $150,000 toward the construction of a home on the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Meagan Taylor Blige filed a complaint for divorce against Willie Alonzo Blige in the Bryan County Superior Court (trial court).
- Mr. Blige counterclaimed, seeking enforcement of the antenuptial agreement.
- Ms. Blige filed a motion to set aside the agreement for failure to comply with legal requirements.
- The trial court conducted a pretrial evidentiary hearing and entered an order setting aside the antenuptial agreement due to Mr. Blige's failure to make a fair disclosure of his assets.
- A jury trial on property division resulted in a verdict awarding Ms. Blige $160,000.
- The trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce incorporating the jury's verdict.
- Mr. Blige (appellant) filed an application for discretionary review to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's failure to disclose a material asset, such as a large sum of cash, prior to the execution of an antenuptial agreement render the agreement unenforceable under Georgia law?
Opinions:
Majority - Sears, Chief Justice
Yes, a party's failure to disclose a material asset renders an antenuptial agreement unenforceable. The court applied the three-part test from Scherer v. Scherer, which governs the enforceability of antenuptial agreements. The first prong requires that the agreement not be the result of fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts. The party seeking enforcement, Mr. Blige, bore the burden of proving he made a 'full and fair disclosure' of his assets. The evidence showed Mr. Blige failed to disclose the $150,000 in cash, a material fact that Ms. Blige was unaware of. The court distinguished this case from Mallen v. Mallen, where financial statements were exchanged and the parties' standard of living provided notice of wealth. The court explicitly rejected Mr. Blige's argument that Ms. Blige had a 'duty to inquire,' stating this would 'eviscerate and render meaningless' the affirmative duty of full disclosure.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical importance of full and fair financial disclosure as a prerequisite for the enforcement of antenuptial agreements in Georgia. By firmly rejecting the concept of a 'duty to inquire,' the court clarifies that the burden of disclosure rests entirely on the party possessing the assets, not on the other party to act as an investigator. This strengthens the protection for prospective spouses who may lack financial sophistication or awareness, solidifying that an 'intelligent waiver' of marital rights can only occur with complete information. The case serves as a clear warning that actively concealing a material asset will almost certainly invalidate a prenuptial agreement under the first prong of the Scherer test.
