McAlpine v. McAlpine
679 So. 2d 85, 1996 WL 506227 (1996)
Rule of Law:
Antenuptial agreements waiving permanent alimony are enforceable as ordinary contracts and are not null and void as against public policy in Louisiana, as permanent alimony is a right intended for the protection of individuals, not the public interest.
Facts:
- About one week prior to their marriage in 1989, Michael McAlpine and Jonnie Fox signed an antenuptial agreement.
- The antenuptial agreement provided for a separate property regime and included a waiver of alimony pendente lite and permanent alimony.
- The agreement also stipulated that Jonnie Fox would receive $25,000 upon divorce if the marriage lasted less than six years, and $50,000 if it lasted six years or more, regardless of her fault or need.
- Michael McAlpine and Jonnie Fox McAlpine were divorced on May 18, 1992.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 5, 1992, Jonnie Fox McAlpine filed a rule to show cause in the trial court, seeking permanent alimony and the return of a Mercedes Benz automobile she claimed was a gift from Mr. McAlpine.
- The trial court held the antenuptial agreement enforceable, ruled the Mercedes Benz was not a gift, and dismissed Mrs. McAlpine's claims.
- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling in part, declaring the antenuptial agreement void as against public policy, but affirmed the trial court regarding the Mercedes Benz, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- Mr. McAlpine's writ of certiorari was granted by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
- On original hearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court, with Justice Kimball dissenting, affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision, concluding that LSA-C.C. art. 112 (permanent alimony) was enacted to protect the public interest, and thus any waiver was void under LSA-C.C. art. 7.
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 that waives a spouse's right to permanent alimony violate Louisiana public policy, rendering it null and void?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Victory
No, an antenuptial agreement that waives a spouse's right to permanent alimony does not violate Louisiana public policy and is therefore enforceable, subject to the same grounds for rescission as other contracts. The Court reversed its original opinion, concluding that permanent alimony (LSA-C.C. art. 112) was enacted for the benefit of individuals (not-at-fault divorced spouses in need), not for the protection of the public interest. Therefore, LSA-C.C. art. 7, which renders absolutely null any act in derogation of laws enacted for public interest, does not apply to waivers of permanent alimony. The Court distinguished permanent alimony from alimony pendente lite, which arises from a statutory duty of support during marriage and is considered a matter of public order. Historical analysis of Article 160 (predecessor to Article 112) showed its basis in fault and individual indemnity, not public charge prevention, and earlier judicial and commentary statements suggesting alimony was to prevent indigence relied on vacated cases or dissenting opinions. Given the modern social context of increased female workforce participation, and the legislature's silence on prohibiting post-divorce alimony waivers while explicitly limiting other marital agreements, the Court found no public policy against such waivers. The enforceability of antenuptial agreements waiving permanent alimony is subject to general contract principles regarding capacity, consent, error, fraud, and duress. The trial court's finding that Mrs. McAlpine entered the agreement freely and voluntarily and that the Mercedes Benz was not a gift was affirmed.
Concurring - Chief Justice Calogero
No, an antenuptial agreement that waives a spouse's right to permanent alimony does not violate Louisiana public policy. Chief Justice Calogero concurred with the majority, agreeing that LSA-C.C. art. 112 was not enacted for public order or good morals, thus LSA-C.C. art. 7 is not implicated. He emphasized the fundamental principle of freedom of contract, stating it is essential to society and government. He noted that the present case, concerning permanent alimony waiver, presents an even more compelling argument for enforceability than the Holliday case, which dealt with alimony pendente lite.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Justice Johnson
While agreeing that antenuptial agreements waiving permanent alimony are enforceable, Justice Johnson would have found that this particular agreement was not entered into voluntarily. Justice Johnson concurred with the majority that antenuptial waivers of permanent alimony are generally enforceable. However, he dissented from the majority's conclusion regarding the voluntariness of this specific agreement. He argued that the circumstances—Mr. McAlpine being an attorney, presenting the agreement one week before the wedding after invitations were mailed, and neither he nor his attorney suggesting Mrs. McAlpine obtain legal counsel—suggested coercion or overreaching, leading him to believe the agreement should be set aside.
Dissenting - Justice Watson
Justice Watson would have held the antenuptial agreement invalid. Justice Watson would have held that the contract between the lawyer and his wife was invalid due to duress.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shifts Louisiana family law, moving away from a paternalistic view of spousal support towards greater contractual freedom in marriage. By determining that permanent alimony is an individual rather than public interest protection, the Louisiana Supreme Court aligns itself with the majority of other states that permit premarital waivers of spousal support. This ruling empowers individuals to define the financial terms of their marriage and divorce through antenuptial agreements, potentially encouraging marriage by allowing parties to safeguard pre-marital assets and expectations. However, it also places a greater burden on individuals to ensure their agreements are fair and entered into without coercion, necessitating careful legal counsel.
