Sailer v. Sailer
2009 N.D. LEXIS 84, 2009 ND 73, 764 N.W.2d 445 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota's Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, a court cannot determine if enforcing a prenuptial agreement is unconscionable without first making specific factual findings regarding the parties' relative property values, their financial resources, and the foreseeable needs of the party challenging the agreement at the time of enforcement.
Facts:
- Curtis Sailer and Sandra Sailer met in 1989. At the time, Curtis possessed significant assets while Sandra had virtually none.
- Curtis Sailer's attorney drafted a prenuptial agreement which provided that each party's premarital property and all earnings and accumulations during the marriage would remain separate property.
- The agreement also included a waiver of any right to spousal support.
- Sandra Sailer was presented with a draft of the agreement approximately one month before signing it.
- On May 13, 1993, sixteen days before their wedding, both parties signed the agreement in the office of Curtis's attorney; Sandra was not represented by independent counsel.
- The parties married on May 29, 1993, had three children, and remained married for nearly 15 years.
- During the marriage, Curtis worked full-time and supported the family, while Sandra worked various part-time jobs.
- At the time of their separation in 2006, Curtis's net worth had nearly doubled to approximately $800,000, while Sandra possessed no significant assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Sailer sued Sandra Sailer for divorce in the District Court of Mercer County, North Dakota (trial court).
- The trial court issued an interim order awarding Curtis Sailer temporary legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered a final judgment that enforced the prenuptial agreement, deemed it conscionable, and awarded primary physical custody of the children to Curtis Sailer.
- Sandra Sailer (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, with Curtis Sailer as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under North Dakota's Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, may a court enforce a prenuptial agreement without making specific factual findings regarding the parties' property values, financial circumstances, and foreseeable needs to determine if enforcement would be unconscionable?
Opinions:
Majority - Kapsner, J.
No. A court may not enforce a prenuptial agreement without making specific factual findings regarding the parties' property values, financial circumstances, and foreseeable needs to determine if enforcement would be unconscionable. The court held that Sandra Sailer failed to meet her burden of proving the agreement was involuntary, as she had an opportunity to review it and was not coerced. The court also found that Curtis did not waive the agreement by supporting his family, as this is a marital duty and does not contradict the agreement's terms. Furthermore, the statutory provision allowing spousal support to avoid public assistance eligibility was not triggered, as Sandra was not eligible for public assistance at the time of trial. However, the trial court erred as a matter of law by finding the agreement conscionable without making the necessary factual findings required by N.D.C.C. § 14-03.1-07. To properly review for unconscionability, an appellate court needs a record of the trial court's findings on the parties' relative property values, financial resources, and foreseeable needs. Because the trial court failed to make these findings, the issue of unconscionability is remanded for further proceedings. The court also remanded the issue of property division, as the trial court failed to distribute jointly held assets as required by the agreement.
Dissenting - Maring, J.
No, and the court should have reversed the trial court's decision rather than remanding it, as the agreement is unconscionable as a matter of law. The undisputed facts—that after a 15-year marriage, Sandra is left in poverty while Curtis's wealth has doubled—demonstrate a blatantly one-sided and rankly unfair result that courts have a duty not to enforce. The majority misinterpreted the public assistance statute, which applies if a party is eligible for aid 'at the time of separation or marital dissolution'; Sandra was eligible at separation, so the court should have considered spousal support. Furthermore, the trial court abdicated its judicial duty by simply adopting the custody investigator's report without independent analysis, which constitutes a delegable error requiring reversal of the custody decision. The premarital agreement is precisely the type of harsh, one-sided contract that North Dakota's unique unconscionability statute was designed to prevent.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the procedural requirements for a court assessing the unconscionability of a prenuptial agreement at the time of divorce in North Dakota. It establishes that a 'second look' at the agreement's fairness is mandatory and must be based on a thorough, fact-based analysis of the parties' current financial realities. The decision reinforces that while parties have the freedom to contract, this freedom is not absolute, and courts retain an equitable duty to prevent unconscionable outcomes. The case serves as a crucial precedent for practitioners, illustrating that a trial court's failure to make specific findings on assets, resources, and needs before upholding a challenged prenuptial agreement constitutes a reversible error of law.
