In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer
889 N.W.2d 41 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement that covers marital property is evaluated for validity under the common law, not statute. Under the common law, such an agreement may be deemed procedurally invalid due to coercion or duress, even when the challenging party had an opportunity to consult with legal counsel.
Facts:
- Robbie Kremer informed Michelle Kremer that he would not marry her without an antenuptial agreement, but they did not discuss specific terms.
- The couple planned a destination wedding in the Cayman Islands for March 6, 2001, with family and friends making travel and lodging arrangements.
- Unbeknownst to Michelle, Robbie met with his lawyer at least six times over a month to draft the agreement.
- On February 26, 2001, just three days before their scheduled departure, Robbie gave the signed agreement to Michelle and told her to consult an attorney.
- Robbie made it clear that if Michelle did not sign the agreement, there would be no wedding.
- Michelle was unable to meet with her preferred attorney but consulted with a different lawyer on February 28.
- Michelle signed the agreement on February 28, which waived her rights to spousal maintenance and provided that marital property would be divided based on monetary contribution.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Kremer (wife) petitioned for marriage dissolution against Robbie Kremer (husband) in the Minnesota district court.
- During the dissolution proceeding, wife moved to set aside the antenuptial agreement.
- The district court bifurcated the action, first holding a hearing on the validity of the agreement.
- The district court concluded that the antenuptial agreement was invalid.
- Following a trial on property issues, the district court awarded wife marital property, spousal maintenance, and attorney fees.
- Robbie Kremer (appellant) appealed the district court's orders to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Minnesota common law, is an antenuptial agreement covering marital property procedurally invalid when it is presented to one party only days before a destination wedding with the ultimatum that it must be signed for the wedding to occur?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Tracy M.
Yes, the antenuptial agreement is procedurally invalid. Antenuptial agreements covering marital property are governed by common-law standards of procedural and substantive fairness, not the simpler two-part statutory test. The common-law standard, articulated in In re Estate of Kinney, is a multi-factor test that examines the totality of the circumstances for duress or undue influence. While Michelle Kremer did consult with counsel, this single factor is not dispositive. The court found that Robbie Kremer procured the agreement through duress by presenting it on a last-minute, non-negotiable basis, just days before their destination wedding for which family had already made financial commitments. This created an 'atmosphere of pressure' that deprived Michelle of a meaningful opportunity to negotiate, rendering the agreement procedurally unfair and therefore invalid.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Hooten
No, the antenuptial agreement is not procedurally invalid. The majority misinterprets Minnesota law by applying a confusing common-law test instead of the clear statutory standard. The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 519.11 should govern all antenuptial agreements, requiring only full financial disclosure and an opportunity to consult with counsel for procedural fairness. Michelle Kremer received full disclosure and did consult with counsel of her choice; therefore, the agreement is procedurally valid under the statute. Applying different standards for marital and nonmarital property is unworkable and contrary to the legislature's intent to create certainty. The district court erred by considering factors beyond the statutory requirements, and its decision should be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that in Minnesota, the validity of an antenuptial agreement covering marital property is subject to a holistic, common-law fairness analysis rather than a rigid, statutory checklist. It establishes that the presence of legal counsel does not automatically cure procedural defects like coercion or duress. By prioritizing the circumstances of the signing over mere technical compliance, the court makes it easier to challenge agreements procured through high-pressure tactics, such as last-minute ultimatums before a wedding. This shifts the legal landscape towards a more protective stance for the financially weaker party, potentially reducing the certainty that contracting parties seek from such agreements.
Unlock the full brief for In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer