Muschik v. Conner-Muschik
920 N.W.2d 215 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement in Minnesota is invalid and unenforceable unless it is executed in writing in the presence of two witnesses, as mandated by Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 2. This statutory execution formality is a mandatory threshold requirement that must be met before a court will consider the agreement's procedural or substantive fairness under common law.
Facts:
- On May 3, 2012, three days before their wedding, DeWayne Francis Muschik and Nancy Jo Conner-Muschik signed a document intended to be an antenuptial agreement.
- The document was notarized but was not signed by any witnesses, despite having signature lines designated for two witnesses for each party.
- The couple married on May 6, 2012.
- Shortly after the marriage, Muschik sold his premarital home and used the proceeds to purchase a new homestead for the couple in Elk River.
- The new Elk River home was titled in the names of both Muschik and Conner-Muschik as joint tenants.
- Throughout the marriage, Muschik continued to work at his family business, Precise Metalcraft Inc. (Precise), receiving a salary.
- During the marriage, the value of Muschik's ownership interest in Precise increased by $172,921.
Procedural Posture:
- DeWayne Francis Muschik (Husband) petitioned to dissolve the marriage in a Minnesota district court.
- Husband initially conceded the antenuptial agreement was invalid but later reversed his position and argued for its enforcement.
- The district court held a trial and ruled that the antenuptial agreement was invalid and unenforceable for lacking the required witness signatures.
- The district court also classified the couple's home and the increased value of the husband's business as marital property, denied spousal maintenance to the wife, and awarded her need-based attorney fees.
- Muschik (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
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 is notarized but not signed in the presence of two witnesses satisfy the execution requirements of Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 2, making it valid and enforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Rodenberg
No, an antenuptial agreement that is not signed in the presence of two witnesses is not valid and enforceable under Minnesota law. The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 2, unambiguously requires that antenuptial agreements 'shall be in writing, executed in the presence of two witnesses, and acknowledged by the parties.' The use of the word 'shall' makes this requirement mandatory, not optional. These statutory formalities are a threshold determination of an agreement's validity. The court rejected the husband's argument that common law fairness standards should apply, clarifying that such an analysis is only relevant for an otherwise properly executed agreement. The failure to comply with the witness requirement is a fatal defect that renders the document invalid on its face, precluding any further inquiry into its fairness.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that the statutory formalities for executing an antenuptial agreement in Minnesota are strict, mandatory, and serve as a gateway to enforceability. It clarifies that a court's first step is to check for compliance with these formalities (writing, two witnesses, acknowledgment) before proceeding to any common-law analysis of fairness. The ruling prevents parties from enforcing improperly executed agreements by arguing they are substantively fair, thereby reinforcing the legislature's intent to create clear, non-negotiable rules for these contracts. This precedent serves as a critical reminder to practitioners that meticulous adherence to every statutory detail during the execution of an antenuptial agreement is essential for its validity.
