Lexplug logoLexplug

Bonnie Reece v. Linda Elliott and Diane Dempsy

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville
208 S.W.3d 419 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An antenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable if it was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, even if the specific value of every asset is not disclosed, so long as there was a full and fair disclosure of the existence of the assets and the complaining party, represented by counsel, had the opportunity to inquire further but chose not to.


Facts:

  • Bonnie Reece and Eugene Reece planned to marry, each having children from prior marriages.
  • They intended to keep their pre-marital property separate for the benefit of their respective children and decided to execute an antenuptial agreement.
  • The agreement included attached lists of each party's separate property. Eugene's list included real estate, a promissory note for $357,000, and 1,687 shares of JH Routh Packing Company stock, but no monetary value was assigned to the stock.
  • Bonnie Reece provided her own list of assets, which also did not assign values to every item.
  • Prior to signing, Bonnie Reece consulted with her own attorney, Debra Graham, who reviewed the agreement with her.
  • Bonnie Reece testified that she understood the agreement and that its purpose was to prevent her from having any claim to Eugene's separate property.
  • She signed the agreement on November 29, 1999, and the couple married on December 4, 1999. Eugene Reece passed away on July 5, 2003.

Procedural Posture:

  • Bonnie Reece, the surviving widow, filed a declaratory judgment action in the Trial Court against the Co-Executrixes of Eugene Reece's estate, seeking to invalidate the antenuptial agreement.
  • After a trial, the Trial Court found the agreement to be valid and enforceable and dismissed Bonnie Reece's action.
  • The defendants (the estate) filed a motion for attorney's fees, which the Trial Court denied.
  • Bonnie Reece (as appellant) appealed the Trial Court's decision upholding the agreement to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
  • The defendants (as appellants on this issue) appealed the Trial Court's denial of their motion for attorney's fees.

Locked

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 the failure to disclose the specific monetary value of a significant asset render an antenuptial agreement invalid and unenforceable, when the existence of the asset was disclosed and the challenging party had independent counsel and the opportunity to investigate?


Opinions:

Majority - Herschel Pickens Franks, P.J.

No, the failure to disclose the specific monetary value of the stock does not render the antenuptial agreement invalid and unenforceable. Under Tennessee law, antenuptial agreements are favored and will be upheld if entered into 'freely, knowledgeably and in good faith.' The standard for 'knowledgeably' requires a full and fair disclosure of the nature, extent, and value of assets, or that the spouse had independent knowledge. However, this does not necessitate a precise valuation of every single asset. The core inquiry is whether the spouse was misled. Here, Bonnie Reece was not misled; the provided list of assets clearly indicated that Eugene Reece was a man of substantial wealth. Crucially, she was represented by independent counsel, which the court considers the 'best evidence' of a knowing and voluntary agreement. She had the opportunity to ask questions about the stock's value or have her counsel investigate, but testified that she chose not to because it 'did not matter' to her, as she knew the assets would remain his separate property. Since the disclosure was sufficient to provide a clear idea of her husband's wealth and she was not misled, the agreement is enforceable.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the 'full and fair disclosure' standard required for the enforceability of antenuptial agreements in Tennessee. The decision emphasizes that the standard is not a rigid requirement for a precise balance sheet, but rather a holistic inquiry into whether a party had a clear, general understanding of the other's financial status. It solidifies the importance of independent legal counsel as strong evidence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights. The ruling places a degree of responsibility on the signing party to conduct due diligence, suggesting that a party who consciously declines to investigate the value of a disclosed asset cannot later use that lack of specific knowledge to invalidate the agreement.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bonnie Reece v. Linda Elliott and Diane Dempsy (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"