Blue v. Blue
2001 WL 468488, 2001 Ky. App. LEXIS 58, 60 S.W.3d 585 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prenuptial agreement is not rendered unconscionable at the time of divorce merely because one party's assets have substantially appreciated. The agreement remains enforceable unless the circumstances at dissolution are so far beyond the parties' contemplation at the time of signing as to work an injustice.
Facts:
- David Blue and Pamela Blue remarried on May 2, 1988, after a prior marriage to each other ended in divorce.
- At the time of their remarriage, David's net worth exceeded $5 million, while Pamela's estate was approximately $190,000.
- On the day of their wedding, after negotiations involving Pamela's attorney, both parties signed a prenuptial agreement.
- The agreement stipulated that each party's separate property, including any appreciation, improvements, or income, would remain separate, and only property acquired in joint names would be divisible upon divorce.
- Under the agreement's terms for divorce, Pamela was to receive a vehicle, furniture, personal effects, and a cash payment based on the length of the marriage, estimated to be about $650,000.
- During the marriage, David's net worth increased substantially, with his interest in one company alone selling for a gross amount around $77 million.
- Pamela contributed as a homemaker during the marriage and did not pursue an outside career.
Procedural Posture:
- David Blue filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Pamela Blue in the Jefferson Family Court.
- David moved for a declaration of rights, asking the trial court to declare the parties' 1988 prenuptial agreement valid and enforceable.
- The Jefferson Family Court granted David's motion, finding the agreement was not unconscionable because an increase in David's wealth did not constitute a negative change in Pamela's financial condition.
- Pamela Blue, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, with David Blue as the appellee.
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 substantial increase in one spouse's wealth since the execution of a prenuptial agreement, by itself, render the agreement unconscionable and unenforceable at the time of divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Knopf, Judge
No, a substantial increase in one spouse's wealth since the execution of a prenuptial agreement does not, by itself, render the agreement unconscionable. The court held that while prenuptial agreements must be reviewed for unconscionability at the time of enforcement, the proper test is whether the circumstances at dissolution are so beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting as to cause enforcement to work an injustice. Here, the parties were already in disparate financial situations when they signed the agreement, and Pamela expressly agreed to forego any share in the appreciation of David's assets, thereby assuming the risk of such an increase. To set aside the agreement, Pamela needed to show not just that David's position improved, but that her own position suffered in a way not contemplated by the agreement, which she failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for unconscionability regarding prenuptial agreements in Kentucky, specifically under the 'changed circumstances' prong of the Gentry test. It establishes that a foreseeable, albeit massive, appreciation of one spouse's assets is not sufficient grounds to invalidate an agreement. The ruling shifts the focus from the mere size of the wealth disparity at divorce to whether the outcome was within the parties' reasonable contemplation when they signed the contract, thereby strengthening the enforceability of such agreements and setting a high bar for challenges based on financial changes.
