Rostanzo v. Rostanzo
900 N.E.2d 101, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 588, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 100 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable if it is fair and reasonable at the time of execution, there was fair disclosure of assets, and the challenging party had a meaningful opportunity to consult with independent counsel. Inadequacy of chosen counsel is not a basis for invalidating the agreement, and minor inaccuracies in financial disclosure are not fatal unless they are prejudicial to the challenging party.
Facts:
- In 1996, Nicholas Rostanzo, an American citizen, met Grazyna Rostanzo, a Polish national, and they began a long-distance relationship.
- In August 2001, Grazyna moved to the United States to live with Nicholas in his home.
- In December 2001, Nicholas proposed an antenuptial agreement and suggested his attorney, David Smith, assist them. Grazyna initially believed Smith represented both of them.
- Upon a friend's advice in mid-January 2002, Grazyna retained her own attorney, Elzbieta Fadrowska, who was fluent in Polish but inexperienced with antenuptial agreements.
- Attorney Fadrowska negotiated a new provision into the agreement concerning payments to Grazyna in the event of divorce.
- On January 26, 2002, both parties, represented by their respective attorneys, signed the agreement. Nicholas's schedule of assets listed approximately $1.3 million in assets but failed to disclose $400,000 in mortgage liabilities. Grazyna's schedule did not provide values for her assets.
- Immediately after the agreement was signed, Nicholas met privately with his attorney and executed a will that left Grazyna a cash bequest of $120,000, with the remainder of his estate going to his four children from a prior marriage.
- Grazyna and Nicholas married on January 28, 2002, and Nicholas died on January 23, 2005.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Rostanzo, the executor of Nicholas Rostanzo's estate, filed a petition for probate of the will in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court.
- Grazyna Rostanzo, the decedent's widow, filed an affidavit of objections to the will and a separate complaint to invalidate the antenuptial agreement.
- The Probate and Family Court consolidated the actions for trial.
- Following the trial, the Probate and Family Court judge issued a judgment voiding the antenuptial agreement but upholding the validity of the decedent's will and denying the request for a constructive trust.
- Both Grazyna Rostanzo (as appellant on the will and trust issues) and Stephen Rostanzo (as appellant on the agreement issue) filed cross appeals to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
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 an antenuptial agreement valid and enforceable when the challenging party claims it was not fair and reasonable, that the other party's financial disclosure was incomplete, and that she lacked a meaningful opportunity to consult with independent counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Perretta, J.
Yes, the antenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable. An antenuptial agreement will be upheld when it is not so unfair as to strip a party of substantially all marital interests, the parties have access to independent counsel, and any financial disclosure failures are not prejudicial. First, Grazyna had a meaningful opportunity to consult with independent counsel of her own choosing, Attorney Fadrowska, who negotiated terms on her behalf. Any claim of inadequate representation by Fadrowska is a matter between Grazyna and her attorney, not a basis for voiding the agreement. Second, the decedent’s failure to disclose his $400,000 in mortgages was not a fatal defect in his financial disclosure. This omission actually overstated his net worth, meaning the error was in Grazyna's favor and there was no showing that this information would have materially affected her decision to sign the agreement. Third, the agreement was not unfair or unreasonable under the standard set in DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, which requires that a party be stripped of 'substantially all marital interests' to invalidate an agreement. Considering the parties' circumstances, including Grazyna's own business acumen and assets, the agreement was not unconscionable. Finally, Grazyna's challenges to the decedent's will fail because there was no evidence of undue influence by his attorney, and her claims of his oral promises to provide for her in the will are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to invalidate an antenuptial agreement in Massachusetts under the DeMatteo standard. It clarifies that the opportunity to consult with independent counsel is a crucial factor, and the subsequent performance of that counsel does not typically affect the agreement's validity. The ruling also establishes that financial disclosures need not be perfectly accurate; rather, the focus is on whether any inaccuracies or omissions were material and prejudicial to the challenging spouse. The case serves as a strong precedent for upholding written agreements against later claims of oral promises, underscoring the power of the Statute of Frauds in testamentary matters.
Unlock the full brief for Rostanzo v. Rostanzo