Gartrell v. Gartrell
908 N.E.2d 1019, 181 Ohio App.3d 311, 2009 Ohio 1042 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's failure to read a prenuptial agreement that he commissioned constitutes gross negligence, barring rescission based on unilateral mistake. However, such an agreement is void as against public policy if its terms provide a significant financial windfall to one party for a marriage of a very short duration, as this promotes or encourages divorce.
Facts:
- John M. Gartrell, an attorney, and Gloria Gartrell, a waitress, decided to marry after a long on-again, off-again relationship.
- Prior to the marriage, John Gartrell hired attorney Hank Meyer to draft an antenuptial agreement.
- John Gartrell reviewed at least two drafts of the agreement and suggested changes.
- The final agreement contained contradictory provisions: one clause stated John Gartrell's home would be considered joint marital property, while an exhibit listed the same home as his separate property.
- The agreement also included a waiver by Gloria Gartrell of all rights to spousal support and any other of John Gartrell's property, including his pension.
- When first presented with the agreement, Gloria Gartrell became upset and refused to sign, leading to the wedding being called off.
- The parties later reconciled and executed the antenuptial agreement on September 18, 2005, just prior to their marriage ceremony.
Procedural Posture:
- During divorce proceedings in the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), the validity of the parties' antenuptial agreement was disputed.
- The trial court rescinded the agreement, finding it was the result of John Gartrell's unilateral mistake and, alternatively, that it was void as against public policy for encouraging divorce.
- The trial court granted the divorce and ordered each party to retain their own separate property, thereby not enforcing the agreement's provision regarding the marital home.
- Gloria Gartrell, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to rescind the agreement to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
- John M. Gartrell, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal.
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 prenuptial agreement that grants one spouse a significant property interest regardless of the marriage's duration, which was signed by the other spouse (an attorney who had it drafted) without reading the final version, violate public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoffman, J.
Yes. An antenuptial agreement is void as against public policy if its terms promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce, such as by providing a significant financial windfall for a marriage of a very short duration. The court first rejected the trial court's reasoning that the agreement could be rescinded due to John Gartrell's unilateral mistake. It held that an attorney who reviews drafts of a contract but fails to read the final version is not merely negligent but grossly negligent, and this level of negligence bars the equitable remedy of rescission. However, the court affirmed the trial court's alternative holding that the agreement was unenforceable on public policy grounds. Applying the test from Gross v. Gross, the court found the agreement's third prong was violated because granting Gloria Gartrell a half-interest in the home for a short-term marriage created a financial incentive to divorce, which public policy forbids.
Dissenting - Wise, J.
No. The prenuptial agreement should not be voided on public policy grounds. The dissent argues that the 'profiteering by divorce' prong of the Gross v. Gross test should not be used to invalidate an agreement against the party who did not seek the divorce. Since Gloria Gartrell was not the party who initiated the divorce proceedings, she should not be imputed with seeking to 'profit' from it. Nullifying the agreement in this instance runs contrary to the general legal favorability of such contracts, which are seen as promoting and facilitating marriage. Therefore, the agreement should be enforced.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies two key principles in contract and family law. First, it establishes that the failure of a legally sophisticated party, such as an attorney, to read a contract they were involved in drafting rises to the level of gross negligence, precluding the defense of unilateral mistake. Second, it provides a strong application of the public policy exception to the enforcement of prenuptial agreements from Gross v. Gross. By invalidating an agreement that creates a 'windfall' for a short-term marriage, the court signals that it will look past the formal terms to the practical incentives the contract creates, striking down those that financially encourage the dissolution of a marriage, regardless of which party is at fault.
