Lexplug logoLexplug

Ware v. Ware

West Virginia Supreme Court
2009 W. Va. LEXIS 122, 687 S.E.2d 382, 224 W. Va. 599 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

One attorney is prohibited from representing both parties in the formation of a prenuptial agreement due to conflicting interests. Furthermore, a prenuptial agreement is only entitled to a presumption of validity if both parties were represented by independent counsel; otherwise, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking enforcement to prove its validity.


Facts:

  • David Ware (28) and Brenda Ayers (23) lived together for two years and planned to marry in February 1993.
  • At the time, David owned a 49% interest in a business called 'The Pizza Place.'
  • Ten days before the wedding, David and Brenda met with attorney Keith Skeen, who presented a draft prenuptial agreement intended to protect David's business interests.
  • Brenda had not seen the agreement prior to this meeting, though David claimed they had discussed the concept previously.
  • Brenda objected to an alimony waiver clause, which was subsequently removed.
  • On February 11, 1993, the parties signed the agreement at Attorney Skeen's office.
  • Both parties and Attorney Skeen signed a 'Certification of Attorney' in which Skeen certified that he had fully advised Brenda of her legal rights, creating the impression he represented her.
  • Skeen did not advise Brenda to seek her own lawyer, believing he could properly counsel both parties.

Procedural Posture:

  • Brenda filed for divorce in the Family Court of Harrison County.
  • The Family Court ruled the prenuptial agreement was void and invalid.
  • David appealed to the Circuit Court of Harrison County.
  • The Circuit Court reversed the Family Court, finding the agreement valid, and remanded the case.
  • On remand, the Family Court ruled Brenda had no interest in the business based on the agreement.
  • Brenda appealed to the Circuit Court.
  • The Circuit Court reversed the Family Court again regarding specific asset valuation and remanded.
  • The Family Court determined the value of the assets.
  • Both parties appealed the valuation to the Circuit Court.
  • The Circuit Court entered a final order affirming the Family Court's decision.
  • David appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

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:

Is a prenuptial agreement valid and enforceable when a single attorney purports to represent the interests of both parties during its negotiation and execution, thereby depriving one party of the opportunity to consult with independent counsel?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Workman

No, the court held that a prenuptial agreement is invalid if one attorney attempts to represent both parties, as this inherently conflicts with the parties' antagonistic interests and deprives the non-proponent spouse of the opportunity for independent counsel. The Court reasoned that prenuptial agreements, like divorce proceedings, involve fundamentally antagonistic interests regarding property rights. Therefore, applying the logic from Walden v. Hoke, dual representation is improper. In this specific case, Attorney Skeen's 'Certification' misled Brenda into believing her interests were protected, effectively stripping her of the opportunity to seek independent counsel required by Gant v. Gant. Consequently, the agreement was not procured validly. The Court further modified the Gant standard, ruling that for a prenuptial agreement to be presumed valid, both parties must have independent counsel. Without independent counsel for both, the burden of proving the agreement's validity shifts to the party trying to enforce it.



Analysis:

This decision significantly alters family law in West Virginia by overturning the previous assumption that prenuptial agreements are valid regardless of legal representation. By establishing a bright-line rule against dual representation in prenuptial negotiations, the Court aligns prenuptial standards closer to divorce ethics rules. The ruling provides protection for less wealthy or less sophisticated spouses who might otherwise be manipulated into signing agreements under the guise of shared legal advice. Practically, this forces parties to hire separate attorneys if they want their prenuptial agreement to hold up in court without facing a heavy burden of proof.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ware v. Ware (2009)

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