Lexplug logoLexplug

Elgar v. Elgar

Supreme Court of Connecticut
1996 Conn. LEXIS 307, 679 A.2d 937, 238 Conn. 839 (1996)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Parties to a contract may validly select the governing law unless the choice was obtained by improper means or violates a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest; under New York law, antenuptial agreements are presumed valid absent proof of fraud or overreaching.


Facts:

  • The plaintiff, Pamela, and the decedent, George, were experienced business people who lived together for four years prior to their marriage.
  • In July 1988, George mentioned he would require an antenuptial agreement, to which Pamela responded, "Forget about it."
  • On September 22, 1988, three days before the wedding, George informed Pamela she had to sign the agreement the next day at his lawyer's office in New York.
  • Pamela arrived at the lawyer's office on September 23 feeling rushed; she decided to sign the agreement regardless of its contents to avoid jeopardizing the marriage.
  • Pamela did not have independent legal counsel and chose not to read the agreement carefully, merely flipping through the pages before signing.
  • The agreement contained a provision waiving spousal rights to property upon death and selected New York law as the governing law.
  • Following the marriage, Pamela maintained significant ties to New York, including residency, business ownership, and voting registration.
  • George died intestate (without a will) in 1990, leaving two adult children from a prior marriage.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Westport Probate Court appointed the defendant (Eric Elgar) as administrator of the decedent's estate.
  • The Probate Court admitted and approved the antenuptial agreement, divesting the plaintiff of her statutory share of the estate.
  • The plaintiff appealed the Probate Court's decree to the Superior Court.
  • The case was referred to an attorney trial referee who conducted a trial de novo.
  • The trial referee recommended judgment for the defendant, and the Superior Court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court.
  • The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself.

Locked

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 an antenuptial agreement containing a New York choice of law provision valid and enforceable where the contesting party signed it immediately before the wedding without independent counsel or reading the document thoroughly?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Norcott

Yes, the agreement and its choice of law provision are valid and enforceable. The Court first addressed the choice of law provision, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that her lack of counsel and failure to read the document constituted "improper means" invalidating the choice. The Court noted that the plaintiff was an experienced business person who voluntarily decided to sign the document to ensure the marriage took place. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187, the Court found that New York had a substantial relationship to the parties (given the plaintiff's residence and the place of execution) and that Connecticut did not have a "materially greater interest" that would override the parties' choice. Moving to the substantive validity of the contract under the chosen New York law, the Court explained that New York presumes such agreements are valid. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove fraud or overreaching. Since the trial referee found no evidence of coercion, fraud, or undue influence, and found that the plaintiff signed willingly despite the time pressure, the agreement stands as a valid contract.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high bar required to invalidate antenuptial agreements, particularly regarding choice of law provisions. It clarifies that a party's own negligence—such as failing to read a contract or declining to seek counsel due to time constraints—does not constitute the "improper means" (like fraud or duress) necessary to void a contractual choice of law. Furthermore, the case illustrates the heavy weight courts place on the factual findings of trial referees regarding credibility and intent. By validating the New York choice of law, the court applied a stricter standard of enforcement than might have existed under older common law presumptions, emphasizing that modern spouses are treated as capable parties to a contract rather than confidential fiduciaries requiring special protection.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Elgar v. Elgar (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"