Murray v. Murray
791 S.E.2d 816, 299 Ga. 703, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 605 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A post-nuptial agreement is unenforceable if it is obtained through fraud, which can be established by one spouse's promise to destroy the agreement made with a present intention not to perform. Given the confidential relationship between spouses, one is entitled to rely on such a representation, and slight circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove fraudulent intent.
Facts:
- Gary Wilbur Murray (Husband) and Brenda Kay Murray (Wife) were married for approximately 34 years when they began discussing divorce.
- Husband indicated he wanted a divorce, while Wife wanted to save the marriage.
- At Husband's behest, Wife wrote a letter renouncing her rights in the marital estate as a gesture to save the marriage.
- Husband then had an attorney draft a formal post-nuptial agreement that was financially favorable to him.
- Husband told Wife that if she signed the agreement to show her love and trust, he would not divorce her and would tear up the document.
- Believing the signing was a symbolic gesture that would have no practical effect, Wife executed the agreement on June 5, 2014.
- Husband did not destroy the agreement as promised; he retained the document.
- The parties' subsequent attempts at marriage counseling were unsuccessful.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Kay Murray (Wife) filed a complaint for divorce against Gary Wilbur Murray (Husband) in the trial court.
- Husband filed a motion to enforce the parties' post-nuptial agreement.
- Wife opposed the motion, arguing the agreement was procured by fraud.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied Husband's motion, finding the agreement unenforceable.
- Husband (as appellant) was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia to review the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a post-nuptial agreement unenforceable on the basis of fraud when one spouse induces the other to sign it by promising to destroy the agreement, but has no present intention of doing so?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunstein, Justice
Yes. A post-nuptial agreement procured by fraudulent inducement is unenforceable. The court found that Husband's promise to destroy the agreement, coupled with his present intention not to perform, constituted fraud. Spouses enjoy a confidential relationship, which entitles one to trust the other, making Wife's reliance on Husband's promise reasonable. While failure to perform a future act is not typically fraud, it becomes fraud when there is a present intention not to perform. The court inferred Husband's fraudulent intent from his subsequent actions: he retained the agreement for months during reconciliation attempts and then produced it for enforcement in the divorce proceeding. Given the confidential nature of the marital relationship, the court held that even slight evidence of fraud was sufficient to render the agreement unenforceable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces that courts will apply equitable principles and heightened scrutiny to post-nuptial agreements due to the confidential relationship between spouses. It affirms that the standard evidentiary bar for proving fraud is lower in intra-family transactions compared to arm's-length commercial contracts. The decision serves as a caution that oral representations made to induce a signature can override the written terms of a marital agreement if they amount to fraud. This precedent solidifies the use of subsequent conduct (i.e., failing to destroy the document and later seeking to enforce it) as key circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of contracting.
