Gross v. Gross
464 N.E.2d 500, 53 A.L.R. 4th 139, 11 Ohio St.3d 99 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Antenuptial agreements providing for the division of property and sustenance alimony upon divorce are not void per se as against public policy. Such agreements are enforceable if validly executed, but sustenance alimony provisions are subject to review for unconscionability at the time of the divorce.
Facts:
- Before marrying, Mr. and Mrs. Gross entered into an antenuptial agreement.
- The agreement contained provisions for the disposition of property and sustenance alimony in the event of a future divorce.
- The agreement included a full disclosure of each party's assets, which were attached as a list.
- The parties were married for fourteen years and had one child.
- During the marriage, Mr. Gross's net worth and income increased substantially.
- Consequently, Mrs. Gross's standard of living increased dramatically during the marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Gross initiated divorce proceedings against Mr. Gross in a trial court.
- The trial court granted the divorce to Mrs. Gross, finding Mr. Gross to be at fault.
- The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals held that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable by Mr. Gross because his marital misconduct had violated the agreement.
- The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio for final review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are provisions in an antenuptial agreement that dictate the division of property and sustenance alimony upon a subsequent divorce void per se as against public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
No. Provisions within an antenuptial agreement providing for the disposition of property and awarding sustenance alimony upon a subsequent divorce are not void per se as being against public policy. Historically, courts voided such agreements, believing they encouraged divorce. However, evolving social norms, including the rise of no-fault divorce, have altered this public policy view. The court established a three-part test for the initial validity of such agreements: (1) they must be entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; (2) there must be full disclosure of assets; and (3) the terms must not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce. The court also held that marital misconduct by one party does not abrogate an otherwise valid agreement. Critically, the court established a dual standard for judicial review: property division provisions are judged for fairness at the time of execution, whereas sustenance alimony provisions are subject to a separate review for conscionability at the time of divorce, allowing courts to modify them if changed circumstances render them unconscionable.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - J. P. Celebrezze, J.
No. The justice concurred that antenuptial agreements contemplating divorce are not per se void and that sustenance alimony provisions should be subject to a conscionability review at the time of divorce. However, he dissented from the majority's holding that property division provisions are not also subject to a conscionability review at the time of divorce. He argued that this dual standard can lead to illogical and unjust results, particularly by failing to protect a spouse—often a homemaker—who contributes to the accumulation of marital assets but is contractually barred from sharing in them, even if that outcome is unconscionable. The dissent contended that the archaic notion of a homemaker's contributions having no economic value has been discarded, and an agreement giving effect to that notion may be unconscionable and unenforceable.
Analysis:
This landmark decision reversed the long-standing common law rule in Ohio that treated antenuptial agreements contemplating divorce as void against public policy. The case established a new, modern framework for evaluating such agreements, aligning Ohio with a growing number of jurisdictions. The most significant legal innovation is the bifurcated standard of review, which distinguishes between property division and spousal support. This approach provides certainty for property arrangements made by the parties while granting courts equitable discretion to prevent future hardship regarding sustenance, reflecting a balance between freedom of contract and the state's interest in the welfare of divorced spouses.
