Corbett v. Corbett
2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 952, 628 S.E.2d 585, 280 Ga. 369 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement is unenforceable if it was obtained through the nondisclosure of a material fact. The failure to disclose one's income is a material nondisclosure when the agreement includes a waiver of the right to alimony.
Facts:
- Three days before their 1987 marriage, Charles Corbett (Husband) and Eileen Corbett (Wife) entered into an antenuptial agreement.
- The agreement provided that upon divorce, each party would retain their separate property and waive any right to seek alimony or support.
- The agreement text stated that both parties had it explained to them by independent legal counsel and that full financial disclosure had been made.
- In reality, Wife had not read the agreement, did not have an attorney review it, and did not provide Husband with a list of her assets.
- Husband, who owned a business and rental properties, did not disclose the amount of his income to Wife.
- Wife had no independent knowledge of Husband's income.
- After 15 years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- Eileen Corbett (Wife) filed a complaint for divorce against Charles Corbett (Husband) in a Georgia trial court.
- Husband filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to enforce the parties' antenuptial agreement.
- The trial court denied Husband's motion, finding the agreement unenforceable under the Scherer test.
- After a jury trial concerning the divorce, where the agreement was not considered, the trial court entered a final judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Husband's (appellant's) application for a discretionary appeal to review the trial court's order denying enforcement of the agreement.
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 his income before the execution of an antenuptial agreement constitute a nondisclosure of a material fact sufficient to render the agreement unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunstein, Presiding Justice
Yes. A party's failure to disclose his income constitutes a nondisclosure of a material fact that renders an antenuptial agreement unenforceable, particularly when the agreement involves a waiver of alimony. The court applied the three-prong test from Scherer v. Scherer to evaluate the agreement's validity. The first prong asks if the agreement was obtained through fraud, duress, or nondisclosure of material facts. The court found that Husband's income was a material fact because it would have been a critical factor in Wife's decision to waive her right to alimony. As there was no evidence that the parties' pre-marital standard of living would have put Wife on notice of Husband's significant income, the nondisclosure was fatal to the agreement's enforceability. Because the agreement failed the first prong of the Scherer test, the court did not need to analyze the other two prongs (unconscionability and change in circumstances).
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the stringent requirement of full financial disclosure for an antenuptial agreement to be valid in Georgia. It establishes that a party's income, not merely their assets, is a material fact that must be disclosed, especially when alimony rights are being waived. The ruling signals that courts will look past boilerplate recitals in a contract (e.g., statements acknowledging full disclosure) to the actual circumstances of its execution. This precedent strengthens the position of the economically disadvantaged spouse and places a clear burden on the proponent of the agreement to prove that genuine, substantive disclosure occurred.
Unlock the full brief for Corbett v. Corbett