aware of the elena uniform pre marital agreement act provides that premarital agreement is unenforceable f the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and before the execution of the agreement the party was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the other's property the party did not waive their right to such disclosure in writing and the party did not and could not have reasonably have an adequate knowledge of the other's property i'd like to begin with the second half of that provision and move on to and constantly in just a moment first it's clear that mrs what provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of mr wood from sprog party exhibit any to the prenuptial agreement purports to be greg's property disclosure the court had ample evidence before it that mr winter in had significant assets placed the marriage that were not disclosed on that document or in any other manner prior to the marriage the evidence in the tr court showed that mr woodrum had a twenty percent ownership interest and not one but two woodrum business entities at the time that the prenuptial agreement was signed he testified to mr woodrum testify that he had a twenty dollars so we're not talking about a car we're talking about a car dealership which was doing very well by he paid all the bells you see yond of his financial disclosure that apparently the business must have been pain some of the bells there's no indication on his financial day that he paid for basic things like cell either and he testified at length that well i don't know what i had i don't i can't explain what these entries are on my tax returns you have to ask the accountant and if he didn't know we have the two thousand and seven tax returns admitted into evidence that indicate a whole host of income generating assets that were not listed on the disclosure i think if she had known all those things and have her attorney known all those things it would have made a difference in what she might have agreed to as it stood she was managing the car dealership and  they lived in a fairly nice house but when you look at the apparently had investment accounts worth what we don't know you know if you compare what she had at the time to what he had at the time i'm paper and what was actually disclosed it does not outrage us when you find out that in two thousand and fourteen he sold the twenty percent interest in the business and frankly that's what that this the law calls for is the reasonable disclosure and he signed a document saying that he was giving a full and reasonable disclosure of his property satisfied all of those three prongs in the wall before the execution of agreement the party was not provided a full and fair disclosure of the other property she didn't wave that disclosure in rating and she did not have and could not have an adequate knowledge of his property which then brings us to the issue of unconscionable ety now this court knows that there are two types of and that's procedural or something and we can even look at a mixture of those two to determine whether there was unconscionable and that has the trial court's decision was a matter of law so again your review would be to know w around seven thousand dollars she didn't have an interest in any real property she had investments of right around fifty thousand dollars her car was half owned by mr w that's her financial picture she's fifty one she has a high school education and letters she was fifty one at the time that she entered that the agreement right by the time of the share she has now though you know then just missed from her house that she has shared with her husband for fourteen years i due to a disagreement about religion and i and again if we look at the difference in the purchase financial situation as disclosed or says the actual financial situation that illustrates that it was substantively unconscionable well presumably she would have continued to work she wouldn't have spent the last ten years in she wouldn't be at sixty one completely she had tapered off over the course of that relationship mr woodrum likes to travel and that was something that he wanted to do with her so she ran the household and her job had required quite a bit of travel herself which was not going to be an end to the relationship so over the course of the relationship they began their relationship in two thousand and one and by two thousand and seven when they had interest in marriage her income had dropped and she was financially ready reliant on him by the time they were about to get married i don't think anybody could say we could get along on seven thousand dollars a year which is what her income was at the time she signed the prenuptial agreement so she had lived with him for having it with him and he basically supported her without him her so if they hadn't married that relationship may continue and it doesn't require her to make a substantial in and may have but then she would have been i notice that  she was giving up the ability to have those protections with the seven year relationship work towards the now and here because she was living in the same house with him for seven years and i presume was aware some of that interest due to their age when she testified that he took care of all the financial matters he paid the bills and agreement i would just like to briefly on our tangential issue which was the summary entry of the dissolution of marriage without having had the opportunity to do any additional discovery regarding any property that would not be encompassed by the marital agreement they did have a seven year relationship we know that there was a jointly own heart at some point we haven't had that there weren't any but they had to have battened because she disclosed this joint interest in a checking account as for an interest in a car and that has not been addressed and so for that reason alone we believe that the matter should be remanded to the trial court to make those determinations once counsel has an opportunity to fully induct discovery on those issues thank you the court please i am going to start out this morning with a question that are sort of already  what prompted me to smell the property that is in dispute he said this petition was filed in september fifteenth there's been extensive discovery financial matters which were disclosed and then he said the council as you said there  was nothing else to do so far as we were concerned or so far as the  but could you go back to my first promise that it's covered in a brief summary an ownership interest in a car and which they both had disclosed checking account i couldn't find the precise reference in the record but i believe that this is what i'm testified that she was on and i do know that mrs woodrum did not have her own vehicle at the time of the dissolution what happened to the vehicle and what proceeds there might have vanished from a fairly nice mustang that was jointly owned should have been what happened at that trial hearing in may of last year he didn't go on to quote my explanation that all of the proceedings up to that point had been focused on the issue of either temporary maintenance or thousand and fourteen tax returns there was no full disclosure we weren't able to determine to what extent that business interests may have th supplementing the parties lifestyle to that point all of which would be relevant to trying to ferret out what mrs woodburn isn't titled still there was a fourteen year relationship a seven year marriage something happened during that point that she she shouldn't walk away with less than she came in with and that's essentially what the ruling was mr woodrum keeps what he keeps and if you'd like to argue you will i attempted to and did and that's apparent and that the transcript of that may thirtieth i believe the final proceeding where the judge met with those twenty percent interest from what we can tell from the tax returns was sold for three hundred fifty thousand dollars so where is that money what did he buy with this during the course or it was really his father's money not really has other oh i don't know what kind of son takes a three hundred fifty thousand dollar tax hit for a dad and if she's correct that money from his business  he he claims that he was getting a salary he didn't get a job you chew he also got a ones as i said we were unable to fully investigate the issue but when we looked at his financial affidavit he completed and