Chaplain v. Chaplain
54 Va. App. 762, 2009 Va. App. LEXIS 396, 682 S.E.2d 108 (2009)
Rule of Law:
Under the Virginia Premarital Agreement Act, a premarital agreement is unenforceable if it was unconscionable when executed and the challenging party was not provided a fair financial disclosure and did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, the right to such disclosure.
Facts:
- Rabha Chaplain (wife), a native of Morocco with limited English proficiency, arrived in the United States in the summer of 1996.
- Within two months of her arrival, she became engaged to Billy W. Chaplain (husband), a Virginia resident with a net worth of approximately $20 million.
- Prior to the marriage, Billy told Rabha that he was a 'poor man' and did not disclose his substantial wealth.
- On August 13, 1997, Billy brought Rabha to his attorney's office and told her she had to sign a 'marriage paper.'
- Rabha, who did not have her own attorney, was not provided a copy of the agreement beforehand and signed it without reading it, believing it to be a marriage license.
- The agreement stipulated that upon divorce, Rabha waived all rights to Billy's property, spousal support, and equitable distribution.
- The only provision for Rabha was a sum of $100,000, but only if the parties were married and living together at the time of Billy's death.
Procedural Posture:
- During divorce proceedings in a Virginia trial court, the validity of a premarital agreement became a central issue.
- At a hearing, after Rabha Chaplain (wife) presented her evidence challenging the agreement's validity, Billy W. Chaplain (husband) made a motion to strike her evidence.
- The trial court granted the husband's motion, ruling that the premarital agreement was valid and enforceable.
- The wife (appellant) filed an appeal of this interlocutory order to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, with the husband 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:
Is a premarital agreement unenforceable when there is a gross disparity in the division of assets, the execution involved oppressive circumstances such as misrepresentation and lack of independent counsel, and the wealthier party failed to provide a fair and reasonable disclosure of his assets?
Opinions:
Majority - Annunziata, Judge.
Yes. A premarital agreement is unenforceable if it is both unconscionable and lacks the statutorily required financial disclosure. The court found that the wife established a prima facie case for unconscionability by demonstrating a 'gross disparity' in the agreement—the husband would retain his entire $20 million estate while the wife would receive nothing upon divorce. This disparity was coupled with 'attendant circumstances' that indicated unfairness and oppression, including the wife's limited English, the husband's misrepresentation of the document as a 'marriage paper,' the lack of independent counsel, and the husband's active concealment of his wealth. Under the Virginia Premarital Agreement Act (Code § 20-151(A)), an unconscionable agreement is unenforceable if the challenging party also proves a lack of fair and reasonable financial disclosure. Since the husband admitted he did not disclose his net worth and the wife did not provide a written waiver of disclosure, the agreement is unenforceable on a prima facie basis.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the two-pronged standard for invalidating a premarital agreement in Virginia, requiring both substantive unconscionability (a grossly unfair outcome) and procedural unconscionability (unfairness in the execution process). The court clarified that procedural defects like misrepresentation, language barriers, and lack of counsel are critical 'attendant circumstances' that can render a lopsided agreement unconscionable. Furthermore, the ruling strictly interprets the statutory requirement for either fair financial disclosure or an explicit written waiver, making it a crucial and independent hurdle for enforcing an otherwise questionable agreement. This provides a clear framework for lower courts and a strong protection for parties who may be vulnerable during the premarital contracting process.
