Dienst v. Dienst
141 N.W. 591, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 847, 175 Mich. 724 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral antenuptial agreement providing for property disposition upon death, made in consideration of marriage, is void and unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, which requires such agreements to be in writing.
Facts:
- In November 1908, Complainant (62) and Defendant (66), both previously widowed, began corresponding after finding each other through a marriage brokerage publication.
- Complainant possessed an estate of between $60,000 and $70,000, while Defendant was penniless.
- Before their engagement, Complainant orally promised Defendant that, as a further consideration for the consummation of their engagement and marriage, she would immediately after their marriage execute a will leaving all her property to him upon her death.
- Relying on this promise and in consideration thereof, Defendant gave up his employment, position, and prospects, and immediately proposed marriage to Complainant.
- Complainant accepted Defendant's marriage proposal, and the parties subsequently married.
Procedural Posture:
- Complainant filed a bill of complaint against Defendant in a circuit court, praying for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty.
- Defendant filed an answer coupled with a cross-bill, seeking to specifically enforce an alleged verbal antenuptial contract.
- Complainant interposed a general demurrer to Defendant's cross-bill, arguing a want of equity, primarily because the claimed antenuptial contract was within the Statute of Frauds.
- The circuit court sustained Complainant's demurrer, effectively dismissing Defendant's cross-bill.
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 an oral agreement, in which one party promises to make testamentary provisions for the other as a 'further consideration for the consummation of said engagement of marriage,' fall within the Statute of Frauds, thereby rendering it void for lack of a writing?
Opinions:
Majority - McAlvay, J.
Yes, an oral antenuptial agreement promising property provisions as a further consideration for marriage falls within the Statute of Frauds and is therefore void and unenforceable. The court reasoned that the defendant's own pleadings clearly established the agreement was made 'as a further consideration for the consummation of said engagement of marriage' and that he relied upon these promises 'in consideration thereof' when proposing marriage. This explicit connection to the consideration of marriage brings the agreement squarely within the prohibition of Section 9515, subd. 3, 3 Comp. Laws, which mandates that 'Every agreement, promise or undertaking, made upon consideration of marriage, except the mutual promises to marry, shall be void unless such agreement, contract or promise, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith.' Despite the defendant's contention that other factors like giving up employment constituted separate consideration, the court found that the core inducement was inextricably linked to the marriage itself, rendering the oral agreement void.
Analysis:
This case underscores the strict application of the Statute of Frauds to agreements made in contemplation of marriage, particularly concerning property rights. It clarifies that even when other factors (like abandoning employment) are presented as additional consideration, if the central promise is tied to the 'consummation of said engagement of marriage,' it will be deemed 'upon consideration of marriage' and thus require a writing. This decision serves as a significant precedent emphasizing the importance of formal written contracts for antenuptial agreements to prevent disputes and fraud, solidifying the legal landscape against oral claims in this domain.
