Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt
2014-Ohio-3652 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spousal support waiver in a valid prenuptial agreement is not unconscionable at the time of divorce merely because the parties enjoyed a higher standard of living during the marriage, especially when that standard of living was established prior to the marriage and there have been no other significant, unforeseen changes in circumstances.
Facts:
- Barbara and Shane Vanderbilt had a long relationship before marrying in 1999.
- Immediately before marrying, they executed a prenuptial agreement which included a mutual waiver of spousal support.
- Throughout their relationship and marriage, Barbara worked full-time for a county agency, providing a steady income, health benefits, and a pension.
- Due to Shane's higher income, the couple established a higher standard of living than Barbara had on her own, which began before the marriage.
- In anticipation of marriage, the couple designed and built a 'dream home' to their specifications.
- Barbara's employment status, earning capacity, and health remained consistent before and during the marriage.
- During the marriage, Barbara used her earnings and approximately $60,000 from the sale of her premarital home to fund living expenses and her children's college education.
Procedural Posture:
- Barbara Vanderbilt filed a complaint for divorce against Shane Vanderbilt in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
- The trial court initially found the prenuptial agreement valid but ordered spousal support without ruling on unconscionability.
- Shane Vanderbilt (Appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case, instructing the trial court to determine if enforcing the spousal support waiver would be unconscionable.
- On remand, the trial court found the waiver unconscionable based on the change in Barbara Vanderbilt's lifestyle and awarded her spousal support of $3,500 per month for 49 months.
- Shane Vanderbilt (Appellant) appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District, with Barbara Vanderbilt 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:
Does a higher standard of living enjoyed during a marriage render a prenuptial agreement's spousal support waiver unconscionable when that standard of living was established during the parties' pre-marital relationship and was therefore contemplated at the time the agreement was signed?
Opinions:
Majority - Hensal, Presiding Judge
No. A spousal support waiver in a valid prenuptial agreement is not rendered unconscionable by a change in lifestyle that was established before the marriage and contemplated by the parties when they signed the agreement. To set aside such a waiver, there must be unforeseen changed circumstances that arise during the marriage which make enforcement of the provision unconscionable. The court, citing Gross v. Gross, distinguished this case from situations involving dramatic, unforeseen changes, such as a massive increase in assets or a debilitating health problem. Here, Barbara Vanderbilt's circumstances—her employment, income, and health—remained unchanged. The couple's higher standard of living was not a change 'occasioned by the marriage' but was a feature of their pre-marital relationship. Allowing a higher standard of living alone to invalidate a spousal support waiver would render most such provisions unenforceable, as they are often created precisely because of an income disparity between the parties.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for invalidating spousal support waivers in prenuptial agreements under Ohio law. It clarifies that the 'changed circumstances' required to render a waiver unconscionable must be significant, unforeseen, and arise during the marriage itself, rather than being a continuation of a pre-marital status quo. The ruling makes it more difficult for a party to challenge a prenup based solely on adapting to a more affluent lifestyle, thereby strengthening the enforceability and predictability of such agreements. This precedent signals to lower courts that they must find a genuine, unanticipated hardship, like a severe health issue or loss of employability, not just a return to a pre-relationship standard of living.
