In re Estate of Hollett
2003 N.H. LEXIS 131, 150 N.H. 39, 834 A.2d 348 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prenuptial agreement may be invalidated for duress if, under the totality of the circumstances, it was not signed voluntarily. Presenting a complex agreement on the eve of the wedding to a party with vastly inferior bargaining power, despite having had ample time to negotiate, may render the agreement involuntary as a matter of law.
Facts:
- In 1984, John Hollett, a 52-year-old successful real estate developer, began a relationship with Erin, a 22-year-old high school dropout.
- In 1988, after they became engaged, John told Erin he would not marry without a prenuptial agreement, leading to a heated argument where Erin stated she would not sign one.
- John did not raise the issue again until the evening of August 16, 1990, less than 48 hours before their scheduled wedding.
- By this time, all arrangements for an elaborate 200-guest wedding had been made and paid for, and Erin's parents had flown in from Thailand.
- John's lawyers had drafted an agreement a month prior and hired a recently graduated attorney, Brian Shaughnessy, to represent Erin on August 16.
- Erin met with Shaughnessy for the first and only time on August 17, the day before the wedding, and was sobbing and under considerable emotional distress throughout the meeting.
- Shaughnessy had no time to independently verify John's financial disclosures.
- John and Erin signed the revised agreement on the morning of their wedding, August 18, 1990. John died in 2001.
Procedural Posture:
- Erin Hollett (petitioner) filed a petition in Merrimack County Probate Court (the trial court) to invalidate a prenuptial agreement following the death of her husband, John Hollett.
- The decedent's first wife, Kathryn Hollett, and their children (respondents) defended the validity of the agreement.
- After a four-day hearing, the probate court ruled that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable.
- Erin Hollett (appellant) appealed the probate court's decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
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 a prenuptial agreement valid when it was presented less than 48 hours before the wedding ceremony to a party with significantly less financial and business sophistication, even if that party was provided with independent counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Duggan, J.
No, the prenuptial agreement is not valid. Courts apply a heightened scrutiny to prenuptial agreements because of the confidential relationship between the parties. While a last-minute agreement is not automatically invalid, the totality of the circumstances must be assessed. Here, several factors distinguish this case from one of voluntary agreement: the vast disparity in bargaining power between the parties in terms of age, wealth, and business experience; John's questionable good faith in waiting two years after the initial dispute and a month after his lawyers drafted the agreement to present it to Erin; and the immense pressure of the imminent, elaborate wedding. The provision of independent counsel is insufficient to overcome these coercive factors when the party has no meaningful opportunity to reflect upon or make effective use of that counsel's advice. To hold otherwise would ignore the reality of the emotional and situational pressure Erin faced, making her consent involuntary. The agreement was obtained through duress and is therefore invalid as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'totality of the circumstances' test for duress in prenuptial agreements in New Hampshire. It establishes that timing is a critical factor and that the mere presence of independent counsel does not cure a procedurally unfair presentation of an agreement. The court signals that significant disparities in sophistication and bargaining power, combined with last-minute timing, create a strong presumption of duress. This holding places a burden on the financially dominant party to initiate prenuptial negotiations well in advance of the wedding to ensure the agreement's enforceability, thereby strengthening protections for the more vulnerable party.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Hollett