Hill v. Hill
269 A.2d 212 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The validity of a personal antenuptial contract is governed by the law of the state where it was executed (lex loci contractus), not by the law of the state where real property subject to the contract is located, particularly when the agreement is a personal promise to convey rather than a direct instrument of conveyance.
Facts:
- On December 30, 1965, Sara Hill and Harry Hill entered into an antenuptial contract in Salisbury, Maryland.
- The contract required Harry Hill to convey all his real estate, including property in Delaware, to himself and Sara Hill as tenants by the entireties within 30 days of their marriage.
- The agreement also required Harry Hill to name Sara Hill as the primary beneficiary on all his life insurance policies.
- Sara Hill and Harry Hill were married in Maryland on December 31, 1965.
- Sara Hill alleges she fully performed her contractual obligations.
- Harry Hill died on October 20, 1967, while domiciled in Delaware, without having transferred certain Delaware real estate (the Hearn's Pond property) or changing his life insurance beneficiary as agreed.
- Harry Hill's will devised the Hearn’s Pond property to three defendants, and his mother remained the named beneficiary on his life insurance policies.
Procedural Posture:
- Sara Gideon Hill filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (trial court) against the devisees of Harry Murdock Hill's will and the beneficiary of his life insurance policies.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the antenuptial contract was unenforceable under Delaware law.
- The Chancellor of the Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Maryland law applied and the contract was valid.
- The defendants (now appellants) appealed the Chancellor's denial of their motion to dismiss to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 Delaware's statutory requirement for the execution of antenuptial contracts control the validity of a contract executed in Maryland concerning, in part, Delaware real estate, thereby rendering the non-compliant contract unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Wolcott, Chief Justice
No. Delaware's statutory requirement for antenuptial contracts does not control the validity of this contract. The court reasoned that the contract was a personal agreement creating obligations between the parties, rather than a document designed to directly affect or transfer title to Delaware real estate. Because the contract was executed in Maryland, its validity is to be determined under Maryland law, where it is considered a valid agreement. Therefore, the complaint properly stated a claim for enforcement by impressing trusts upon the assets in question.
Analysis:
This case establishes a key choice-of-law principle for antenuptial agreements involving property in multiple states. By characterizing the agreement as personal rather than as a direct conveyance of real property, the court applied the rule of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made) instead of lex situs (the law of the place where the property is located). This decision allows for the enforcement of out-of-state contracts that might otherwise fail under Delaware's stricter formal requirements, promoting the parties' original intent. It guides future courts to examine the nature of the agreement—whether it is a personal promise or a direct instrument of title transfer—to determine which state's law governs its validity.
