In Re the Marriage of Shanks
2008 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 162, 2008 WL 5191490, 758 N.W. 2d 506 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Iowa Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, a premarital agreement is voluntarily executed if it is free from duress and undue influence. An agreement is not unconscionable simply because it is financially one-sided, provided there was no procedural unconscionability, such as exploitation of unequal bargaining power, and the challenging party had a meaningful opportunity to consult independent counsel.
Facts:
- Randall Shanks, an attorney, and Teresa Shanks, who held a business degree and had worked for Randall, planned to marry.
- Randall expressed a desire for a premarital agreement to protect his assets for his children from a prior marriage, and Teresa agreed, stating she was not marrying him for his money.
- On April 13, 1998, ten days before their wedding, Randall presented Teresa with a draft premarital agreement that would keep most of their assets separate.
- Randall insisted that Teresa seek independent legal advice regarding the agreement.
- Teresa consulted a Nebraska-licensed attorney, Edith Peebles, whose associate reviewed the draft, noted it would waive Teresa's spousal rights, and advised her to seek Iowa-licensed counsel.
- Teresa requested changes based on the attorney's notes but did not heed the advice to consult an Iowa attorney.
- Randall revised the draft, attached financial disclosure schedules, and again urged Teresa to have her lawyer review it.
- Without seeking further counsel, Teresa signed the revised agreement on April 17, 1998, the day before the couple departed for their wedding.
Procedural Posture:
- Randall Shanks filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Teresa Shanks in the Iowa district court.
- Randall sought to enforce the parties' premarital agreement, which Teresa opposed.
- The district court bifurcated the trial and first addressed the agreement's enforceability, ruling it was involuntary and therefore unenforceable.
- After a subsequent trial, the district court entered a dissolution decree dividing the parties' property without regard to the agreement.
- Randall Shanks, as appellant, appealed the district court's rulings to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted Randall Shanks's petition for further 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:
Under the Iowa Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, is a premarital agreement unenforceable for lack of voluntariness or for unconscionability when one party, after being urged to seek independent counsel, consults an out-of-state attorney but declines further legal advice before signing the financially one-sided agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Hecht, J.
No, the premarital agreement is not unenforceable under these circumstances. To prove an agreement was not voluntary under the Iowa Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (IUPAA), the challenging party must show duress or undue influence. An agreement is not unconscionable merely because its terms are financially one-sided, especially when the challenging party had an opportunity for independent legal review and was not subjected to procedural unfairness. The court reasoned that voluntariness under the IUPAA requires proof of duress or undue influence, which Teresa failed to establish. Randall's ultimatum of not marrying without an agreement does not constitute wrongful duress, and Teresa had the reasonable alternative of canceling the wedding. There was no undue influence because Randall repeatedly encouraged Teresa to seek counsel, and her will was not overborne. Regarding unconscionability, the court analyzed both substantive and procedural aspects. The agreement was not substantively unconscionable because, while one-sided, its terms were consistent with the parties' financial conditions at the time of execution and provided some benefits to Teresa. There was no procedural unconscionability because Randall, despite having superior bargaining power as an attorney, did not exploit it; instead, he insisted Teresa obtain independent counsel. Teresa's conscious decision to forego this opportunity, despite being an intelligent and educated person, undermined her claim. Finally, the court found that Randall had provided a fair and reasonable financial disclosure, and Teresa had adequate knowledge of his finances.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standards for enforcing premarital agreements under the Iowa Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (IUPAA), distinguishing them from older, more paternalistic common law tests. The court establishes that 'voluntariness' requires a specific showing of duress or undue influence, a higher bar than a general 'procedural fairness' inquiry. By emphasizing a party's responsibility for their choice to forego legal counsel, the ruling strengthens the enforceability of premarital agreements and prioritizes freedom of contract over judicial review for mere inequity. This holding signals to future litigants that courts will be hesitant to invalidate a facially valid agreement where a party had the opportunity to protect their interests but consciously chose not to.
Unlock the full brief for In Re the Marriage of Shanks