Lawrence v. Lawrence
2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3534, 687 S.E.2d 421, 286 Ga. 309 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement that contemplates divorce is not subject to the statutory two-witness requirement for contracts made in contemplation of marriage. Furthermore, the requirement of a full and fair financial disclosure prior to execution can be satisfied without a formal written statement of assets if a party's general knowledge of the other's wealth, assets, and lifestyle, gained over a long-term cohabiting relationship, is sufficiently comprehensive.
Facts:
- G. Lawson Lawrence and Angela M. Lawrence began dating in July 2001.
- Mr. Lawrence, having been divorced twice before, consistently raised the issue of an antenuptial agreement whenever the topic of marriage arose during their courtship.
- After dating for a year and a half, the couple began living together and cohabited for over two years before they married.
- During their relationship and cohabitation, Ms. Lawrence became aware of Mr. Lawrence's significant assets, including multiple businesses, various real estate holdings, a 6,000 square foot home, a condominium, a boat, and his generally affluent lifestyle.
- On February 27, 2005, approximately one month before their wedding, the couple executed an antenuptial agreement drafted by Mr. Lawrence's attorney.
- The agreement was attested by only one witness.
- Ms. Lawrence was advised of her right to have independent counsel review the agreement but chose not to do so.
- The couple married on April 5, 2005, and separated three years later.
Procedural Posture:
- G. Lawson Lawrence filed a complaint for divorce against Angela M. Lawrence in the Baldwin County Superior Court, a state trial court.
- In her answer and counterclaim, Ms. Lawrence alleged that the parties' antenuptial agreement was unenforceable.
- Mr. Lawrence filed a motion to enforce the antenuptial agreement.
- The trial court entered an order finding the agreement valid and enforceable.
- The trial court certified its order for immediate review, and the Supreme Court of Georgia granted Ms. Lawrence's application for an interlocutory appeal.
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 an antenuptial agreement satisfy the requirement of full and fair financial disclosure when one party does not receive a formal, written statement of the other's assets but possesses substantial general knowledge of their financial status and affluent lifestyle from a long-term cohabiting relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Nahmias, Justice.
Yes. An antenuptial agreement can satisfy the financial disclosure requirement without a formal written statement of assets if the challenging party had sufficient general knowledge of the other's financial condition. First, the agreement is a contract 'in contemplation of divorce,' not 'in contemplation of marriage,' because it addresses alimony and the possibility of divorce, thus it is not subject to the two-witness requirement of OCGA § 19-3-63. Second, applying the Scherer test, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a full and fair disclosure. Although attaching financial statements is the 'most effective method,' it is not required. Given the parties' four-year courtship, including over two years of cohabitation, Ms. Lawrence had extensive familiarity with Mr. Lawrence’s business dealings, assets, and affluent lifestyle, and there was no evidence he concealed material assets. This knowledge was sufficient to constitute a full and fair disclosure.
Dissenting - Hunstein, Chief Justice,
No. The husband failed to meet his burden of proving a full and fair disclosure of all material facts because general knowledge of assets and spending habits is not a substitute for specific disclosure, particularly regarding income. The agreement itself provides no information on Mr. Lawrence's income, a critical factor for Ms. Lawrence to knowingly waive her right to alimony. Awareness of certain assets does not foreclose the possibility that other assets or income streams exist. Therefore, without a disclosure of income, the waiver of alimony was made without knowledge of a material fact, rendering the agreement unenforceable.
Dissenting - Williams, Chief Judge,
No. The majority's reliance on assumptions about the parties' relationship creates an unascertainable standard, and trial courts should be required to make specific findings about financial disclosures when formal documentation is not attached to an agreement. Trial courts should disregard boilerplate language about full disclosure and a party's failure to retain counsel. To ensure clarity, if financial statements are not incorporated, courts should be obligated to make specific findings on when, how, and with what accuracy the disclosure was made. Assumptions based on intimate relationships are unreliable, as parties may deliberately overstate or understate their financial circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that Georgia's 'full and fair disclosure' standard for antenuptial agreements is flexible and does not impose a rigid requirement for formal financial statements. It establishes that a party's long-term, intimate knowledge of a partner's financial condition, gained through cohabitation, can substitute for formal disclosure, making it more difficult for a cohabiting spouse to later challenge an agreement on these grounds. The strong dissents, however, signal ongoing judicial tension over this flexible standard, suggesting that future cases will likely continue to test the boundaries of what constitutes 'sufficient' informal knowledge, especially concerning undisclosed income versus assets.
