In re ESTATE OF HOLLETT 834 A.2d 348 (2003) CASE BRIEF

In re ESTATE OF HOLLETT

834 A.2d 348 (2003)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Widow (W) appealed from an order in favor of the decedent husband's first wife and children, declaring that a prenuptial agreement between W and H was valid.

FACTS: H and W were married on August 18, 1990. Their courtship had begun in 1984, when H was fifty-two and W was twenty-two. H was a successful real estate investor and developer. W had dropped out of high school in the eleventh grade, and had no work or business experience aside from several low level jobs. W had almost no involvement in or understanding of H's business. H had previously been married to Kathryn (W1), with whom he had five children. Under the terms of their divorce, H owed W1 a substantial property settlement, and still owed her millions of dollars at the time of his death. W was unaware of this property settlement. W found a newspaper article about prenuptial agreements that H had left on the kitchen counter. H explained that W1 had given it to him, and stated that he would not get married without a prenuptial agreement. W said she would not sign such an agreement, particularly because H's first wife had insisted upon it. H said nothing about a prenuptial agreement again until several days before the August 18, 1990 wedding. H's lawyers drafted a prenuptial agreement that was sent to him on July 26. W did not learn about the agreement until the evening of August 16, less than forty-eight hours before the wedding. Under the original draft, W was to renounce any claim to alimony or a property settlement in the event of a divorce, and would receive only $25,000 and an automobile. H's lawyers contacted Brian Shaughnessy, a recent law school graduate, and requested that he counsel W regarding the prenuptial agreement. Shaughnessy first called w on August 16 to obtain her consent to act as counsel and to set up a meeting at the McLane law firm office the next day. Shaughnessy had never before negotiated a prenuptial agreement, but prior to the meeting he studied the law of prenuptial agreements and reviewed the draft agreement. W, accompanied by her mother, met with Shaughnessy in person for the first and only time at the McLane law firm on August 17, the day before the wedding. All of the plans and arrangements for the elaborate wedding, at which over 200 guests were expected, had already been made and paid for; W's mother and father had already flown in from Thailand. During the meeting and subsequent negotiations with H's attorneys, Shaughnessy noted that W was under considerable emotional distress, sobbing throughout the three or four hours he was with her and at times so distressed that he was unable to speak with her. Shaughnessy, testified that he carefully reviewed H's financial disclosure and draft of the agreement with W, explained their legal significance, and asked her what she sought to obtain from the agreement. He advised her that the settlement offer in the draft was inadequate, and reminded her that the wedding could be put off if necessary. Shaughnessy also testified that the financial disclosure was inadequate. Shaughnessy, had no time to independently verify any of John's finances. He believed that any failure to disclose was H's problem, as it could lead to the invalidation of the agreement. At the end of the negotiations, the prenuptial agreement allowed W to obtain as much as one-sixth of H's estate in the event of a divorce or death. H and W signed on the morning of August 18, the day of their wedding. H died on April 30, 2001. W subsequently petitioned the probate court to invalidate the prenuptial agreement. The probate court concluded that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. W appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner