Lane v. Lane
2006 WL 2706956, 202 S.W.3d 577, 2006 Ky. LEXIS 232 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may invalidate or modify a provision in an antenuptial agreement, such as a waiver of maintenance, if changed circumstances during the marriage render enforcement of that provision unconscionable at the time of dissolution.
Facts:
- Three days before their marriage on November 24, 1990, Paula O. Lane and David L. Lane entered into an antenuptial agreement.
- At the time of the marriage, Paula Lane was 29 years old with a high school education, earning $19,000 per year as a hotel clerk.
- At the time of the marriage, David L. Lane was 26 years old with a college degree, earning $166,000 per year as a stockbroker.
- The agreement included a provision where both parties waived their rights to claim maintenance in the event of divorce.
- The marriage lasted for nine and a half years, during which two children were born.
- After the birth of their children, Paula Lane did not work outside the home and was the primary caregiver.
- By the time the marriage was dissolved, David Lane had become a partner in a brokerage firm and was earning approximately one million dollars per year.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon dissolution of the marriage, the trial court found the antenuptial agreement's maintenance waiver to be unconscionable and awarded maintenance to Paula Lane.
- David L. Lane, as appellant, appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the agreement should be strictly enforced.
- Paula O. Lane, now the appellant, was granted discretionary review by the Kentucky Supreme Court, the state's highest 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:
Does a waiver of maintenance in an antenuptial agreement become unenforceable as unconscionable when, over the course of a nine-and-a-half-year marriage, one spouse forgoes employment to become a homemaker and primary caregiver for two children while the other spouse's income increases exponentially?
Opinions:
Majority - Lambert, C.J.
Yes. A waiver of maintenance in an antenuptial agreement is unenforceable where changed circumstances make its enforcement unconscionable. Trial courts have broad discretion to review such agreements at the time of enforcement and may modify or invalidate provisions if the facts and circumstances have changed so as to make enforcement unfair and unreasonable. Here, the significant disparity in income that grew exponentially during the marriage, coupled with Paula's discontinuance of employment to raise the couple's two children and maintain the household, constituted a substantial change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals erred by not giving proper deference to the trial court's finding of unconscionability, which was supported by these facts.
Dissenting - McAnulty, J.
No. The waiver of maintenance provision in the antenuptial agreement should be enforced because it represented a bad bargain, not an unconscionable one. The parties entered the agreement with the advice of independent counsel and with full knowledge of the initial income disparity. The property awarded to Paula Lane, in addition to child support, provides a comfortable lifestyle and is sufficient to support her while she pursues new career interests. An affluent lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage does not automatically render a freely negotiated maintenance waiver unconscionable, and the trial court abused its discretion by setting it aside.
Concurring - Graves, J.
Yes. The maintenance waiver is unconscionable because it fails to accord any value to the partnership theory of marriage and the substantial contributions of the homemaker spouse. The agreement is fundamentally unfair because it discounts Paula Lane's role in raising the children and managing the household, which directly enabled David Lane's career success. State law recognizes the services of a homemaker as a significant contribution, and rehabilitative maintenance for such spouses is not a gift but something earned through years of labor on behalf of the family. Enforcing the waiver would devalue the homemaker role and contribute to the feminization of poverty.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the judicial power to review antenuptial agreements for fairness at the time of divorce, not just at the time of signing. It establishes that a waiver of maintenance is highly susceptible to an unconscionability challenge when there is a long-term marriage with children and one spouse has sacrificed career opportunities to be a homemaker. The ruling signals that courts will protect a non-working or lower-earning spouse from the harsh effects of a prenup when subsequent events, like raising a family, create a vast and unforeseen economic disparity. This precedent provides an important equitable exception to the freedom of contract in the family law context.
