Title: ROBERT H. BRADLEY v. DAYELLE FARGEY BRADLEY

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ROBERT H. BRADLEY v. DAYELLE FARGEY BRADLEY2007 WY 117164 P.3d 117Case Number: No. 06-201Decided: 07/31/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
ROBERT 
H. BRADLEY,

 
 
Appellant

(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
DAYELLE 
FARGEY BRADLEY,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofTetonCounty

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Kenneth 
S. Cohen of Cohen Law Office, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming. 

            

Representing 
Appellee:

Jessica 
Rutzick, Jackson, Wyoming. 

            

Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      Robert H. Bradley 
(Husband) appeals from the district court's order granting a partial summary 
judgment in favor of Dayelle Fargey Bradley (Wife).  The court ruled, as a matter of law, 
that Minnesota law applied to the modification 
provision of the parties' premarital agreement and their post-nuptial amendment 
to the agreement was unenforceable because it did not comply with Minnesota statutes.  Husband claims that the district court 
erred by interpreting the premarital agreement as requiring the application of 
Minnesota law 
to the modification provision.  We 
conclude that the district court properly interpreted the plain language of the 
premarital agreement and affirm.

            

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Husband presents 
two issues on appeal:

 
 
            
[1.]       
Should the district court have granted partial summary judgment 
invalidating the parties' postmarital amendment to their premarital agreement, 
when the agreement included a clause providing that amendments shall be in 
writing, executed and acknowledged by the parties, and the amendment complied 
with those requirements?

 
 
            
[2.]       
Should the district court have granted partial summary judgment 
invalidating the parties' postmarital amendment to their premarital agreement, 
when the choice of law clause in the agreement did not require using Minnesota 
law, and did not apply to amendments, considering that the amendment was signed 
in California by parties residing in Wyoming, and was valid under both Wyoming 
and California law?

 
 
Wife 
restates the appellate issue as:

 
 
            
Did the District Court properly apply Minnesota law to a purported modification of a premarital 
agreement, where the premarital agreement includes a choice of law provision 
calling for Minnesota law to govern its "validity, 
execution, enforcement and construction[?]"

 
 
FACTS

            

[¶3]      The 
underlying facts of this case are recited in Bradley v. Bradley, 2005 WY 107, 118 P.3d 984 (Wyo. 2005).  The parties married on July 29, 
2001.  Id., ¶ 3, 118 P.3d  at 987.  A few days prior to their wedding, they 
entered into a premarital agreement.  
Id.  The agreement "governed the rights, 
responsibilities, and obligations of the parties in the event of divorce . . . 
."   Id.  Of importance to this case, Husband 
agreed that he would transfer to Wife title to certain real property located in 
California, and, if the marriage lasted fewer than two years, a lump sum payment 
of $100,000.  He also agreed to pay 
her $10,000 per month for a period of two years so long as she did not remarry 
or cohabitate with a third person.  
The premarital agreement included a choice-of-law provision stating that 
the "validity, execution, enforcement and construction of the terms and 
provisions of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of 
Minnesota" and 
a provision pertaining to modification and amendment of the agreement.       

 
 
[¶4]      On January 28, 2003, Husband filed a 
complaint against Wife, seeking a divorce and property dissolution in accordance 
with the premarital agreement.  
Id., ¶ 3, 118 P.3d  at 987.  Wife accepted service of the complaint, 
but did not file an answer.  
Id., ¶¶ 4-5, 118 P.3d  at 987.  At Husband's request, the clerk of the 
district court entered a default against Wife.  Id., ¶¶ 5-6, 118 P.3d  at 987-88.  

 
 
[¶5]      Subsequent to the 
entry of default, the parties attempted to reconcile.  While in California during the reconciliation period, 
they signed a handwritten document entitled "Amendment to Premarital Agreement 
Dated July 24, 200[1]."  The 
amendment stated:

 
 
May 
18, 2003

 
 
            
As per our discussion on May 12, 2003, I [husband] have temporarily 
suspended the divorce proceeding.  
As discussed, it is our intent to reconstitute our 
marriage.

 
 
            
As a result of our discussions, we have agreed to amend our Premarital 
Agreement dated July 24, 2001 as follows:

 
 
            
In the event that an act of adultery, occurring after May 12, 2003, 
becomes the issue which leads to the reinstatement of the divorce proceeding, 
the initial payment of $100,000.00 shall be deleted.  

 
 
            
This agreement shall be limited to a period of 6 months from this 
date.  

 
 
[¶6]      The 
reconciliation was unsuccessful and, on September 4, 2003, Husband requested the 
district court to enter a divorce decree incorporating the terms of the 
premarital agreement, as modified by the May 18, 2003, amendment.  Id., ¶¶ 6-7, 118 P.3d  at 988.  A few days later, the district court 
entered a decree in accordance with Husband's request.  Id., ¶ 7, 118 P.3d  at 988.  Wife filed a petition to modify the 
divorce decree requesting an opportunity to argue in favor of setting aside the 
amendment to the premarital agreement and reinstating the requirement that 
Husband pay her the $100,000 lump sum under the terms of the original 
agreement.  She also filed a motion 
to enforce various terms of the divorce decree, including the provision 
requiring Husband to pay her $10,000 per month for two years.  

 
 
[¶7]      The district 
court denied Wife's motion to modify the divorce decree, but it did not rule on 
her motion to enforce the divorce decree.  
Id., ¶ 11, 118 P.3d  at 989.  Wife appealed to this Court, and we 
found her due process rights had been violated because Husband had not served 
her with a copy of his motion for a default judgment which sought enforcement of 
the amended premarital agreement.  
Id., ¶¶ 12, 21, 118 P.3d  at 989, 992.  Consequently, we upheld the divorce but 
reversed and remanded the case "to conduct such further hearings as may be 
required to determine a just and equitable distribution of the marital 
property."  Id., ¶ 21, 118 P.3d  at 992.  

 

[¶8]      On remand, Wife 
moved for a partial summary judgment arguing that, pursuant to the choice-of-law 
provision in the premarital agreement, Minnesota law applied to modification of the agreement, 
and the May 18, 2003, amendment was unenforceable because it was not made in 
accordance with Minnesota law.  Husband argued that Minnesota law should not 
be applied because the choice-of-law provision did not apply to amendments or 
modifications of the premarital agreement and the May 18th amendment 
was enforceable because it was in writing and signed by the parties in 
accordance with the modification provision of the premarital agreement.  After a hearing, the district court 
ruled that Minnesota law governed the process 
for amending the premarital agreement and the parties did not comply with 
Minnesota 
statutory requirements when executing the amendment.  Therefore, the court declared that the 
amendment was not enforceable.   

 
 
[¶9]      The district 
court held a trial on the remaining issues.  After it entered a final judgment and 
decree, Husband appealed, claiming the district court's order granting partial 
summary judgment to Wife was erroneous.    

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶10]   We review all aspects of the 
district court's decision to grant a summary judgment de novo.  Cook v. Shoshone First Bank, 2006 WY 13, 
¶ 11, 126 P.3d 886, 889 (Wyo. 2006).  
Pursuant to W.R.C.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate "if the 
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to 
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 
matter of law."

   

[¶11]   In reviewing a summary judgment, we 
employ the same standards and examine the same material as the district 
court.  Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. First Nat'l 
Bank of Steamboat Springs, N.A., 2006 WY 132, ¶ 11, 144 P.3d 1224, 1227 (Wyo. 2006).  We examine the record to determine if 
there are any genuine issues of material fact.  A genuine issue of material fact exists 
when a disputed fact, if proven, would establish or refute an essential element 
of a cause of action or a defense that a party has asserted.  This Court considers the evidence in the 
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, affording to that party 
the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the record.  Id.

 

DISCUSSION 

 
 
[¶12]   The district court ruled that 
Minnesota law 
governed the procedure for amending the agreement.  The choice-of-law provision of the 
premarital agreement stated:  

 
 
ARTICLE 
15

Interpretation

 
 
            
The validity, execution, enforcement and construction of the terms and 
provisions of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of 
Minnesota.  To the extent permitted by law, the 
rights of the respective parties hereunder shall be determined in accordance 
with the provisions of Minnesota law in effect on the date of 
execution of this Agreement.

 
 
[¶13]   Minn. Stat. Ann. § 519.11 
(Thomson/West 2007) governs premarital agreements (referred to as antenuptial 
agreement) and states in pertinent part:

 
 

519.11. 
Antenuptial and postnuptial contracts

 
 

Subdivision 
1. Antenuptial contract.  A man and woman of legal age may enter 
into an antenuptial contract or settlement prior to solemnization of marriage 
which shall be valid and enforceable if (a) there is a full and fair disclosure 
of the earnings and property of each party, and (b) the parties have had an 
opportunity to consult with legal counsel of their own choice.  An antenuptial contract or settlement 
made in conformity with this section may determine what rights each party has in 
the nonmarital property, defined in section 
518.003, subdivision 3b, 
upon dissolution of marriage, legal separation or after its termination by death 
and may bar each other of all rights in the respective estates not so secured to 
them by their agreement.  This 
section shall not be construed to make invalid or unenforceable any antenuptial agreement or settlement 
made and executed in conformity with this section because the agreement or 
settlement covers or includes marital property, if the agreement or settlement would be valid and 
enforceable without regard to this section.

 
 

Subd. 
1a. Postnuptial contract.  (a) Spouses who are legally married 
under the laws of this state may enter into a postnuptial contract or settlement 
which is valid and enforceable if it:

 
 

(1) 
complies with the requirements for antenuptial contracts or settlements in this 
section and in the law of this state, including, but not limited to, the 
requirement that it be procedurally and substantively fair and equitable both at 
the time of its execution and at the time of its enforcement;  and

 
 

(2) 
complies with the requirements for postnuptial contracts or settlements in this 
section.

 
 

(b) 
A postnuptial contract or settlement that conforms with this section may determine all matters that may be determined by 
an antenuptial contract or settlement under the law of this state, except that a 
postnuptial contract or settlement may not determine the rights of any child of 
the spouses to child support from either spouse or rights of child custody or 
parenting time.

 
 

(c) 
A postnuptial contract or settlement is valid and enforceable only if at the 
time of its execution each spouse is represented by separate legal 
counsel.

 
 

(d) 
A postnuptial contract or settlement is presumed to be unenforceable if either 
party commences an action for a legal separation or dissolution within two years 
of the date of its execution, unless the spouse seeking to enforce the 
postnuptial contract or settlement can establish that the postnuptial contract 
or settlement is fair and equitable.

 
 
* * * 

Subd. 
2. Writing;  
execution.  Antenuptial or postnuptial contracts or 
settlements shall be in writing, executed in the presence of two witnesses and 
acknowledged by the parties, executing the same before any officer or person 
authorized to administer an oath under the laws of this state.  An antenuptial contract must be entered 
into and executed prior to the day of solemnization of marriage.  A power of attorney may not be used to 
accomplish the purposes of this section.

 
 

Subd. 
2a. Amendment or revocation.  An antenuptial contract or settlement 
may be amended or revoked after the marriage of the parties only by a valid 
postnuptial contract or settlement which complies with this section and with the 
laws of this state.  A postnuptial 
contract or settlement may be amended or revoked only by a later, valid 
postnuptial contract or settlement which complies with this section and with the 
laws of this state.

 
 
[¶14]   It is undisputed that the parties 
did not comply with § 519.11 in numerous ways when they executed the May 18, 
2003, amendment.  For example, they 
failed to sign in the presence of two witnesses or a notary.1  Husband concedes the parties' May 18, 
2003, amendment was not enforceable under Minnesota law.  Nevertheless, he argues that the 
parties' choice of  Minnesota law did not 
apply to the provision pertaining to modification of the premarital 
agreement.  The modification 
provision stated: 

 
 
ARTICLE 
14

Modification

 
 
            
The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to 
modification and amendment by mutual agreement of the parties at any time and 
from time to time, but such modifications and amendments shall be effective only 
after they have been made in writing and executed and acknowledged by the 
parties hereto.

    

[¶15]   In order to settle this dispute, we 
must interpret the relevant provisions of the premarital agreement.  Article 15 states that Minnesota law applies to 
"construction" of the contract.  
Thus, the plain language of the premarital agreement directs that 
Minnesota law 
be applied to construe or interpret its terms.  We note, however, that Wyoming and Minnesota rules for interpreting contracts are 
very similar; consequently, we will refer to analogous cases from both 
jurisdictions.    

 
 

Whether 
a contract is ambiguous is a question of law, on which the reviewing court owes 
no deference to the district court's determination.  Blackburn, 
Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson, 
366 N.W.2d 640, 643-44 (Minn. App. 1985), 
review denied (Minn. June 24, 1985).  "The interpretation of a contract is a 
question of law if no ambiguity exists, but if ambiguous, it is a question of 
fact and extrinsic evidence may be considered."  City 
of Virginia v. 
Northland Office Props. Ltd. P'ship, 
465 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn. App. 1991), 
review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 1991).

 
 

Murray v. 
Puls, 690 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).  
See also, Dorr v. Wyo. Bd. of Certified Public Acc'ts, 
2006 WY 144, ¶ 16, 146 P.3d 943, 953 (Wyo. 2006).   
Courts in both states seek to interpret contracts in accordance 
with the parties' intentions.  Chergosky v. 
Crosstown Bell, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 522 
(Minn. 1990), 
citing Hunt v. IBM Mid Am. Employees Fed. 
Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853, 856 
(Minn. 
1986); Boley v. Greenough, 2001 WY 47, ¶ 11, 22 P.3d 854, 858 (Wyo. 2001) (stating that determining the parties' intent is our 
prime focus in interpreting or construing a contract).  If a contract is unambiguous, the 
"contract language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning[.]"  Minneapolis Pub. Hous.  Auth. v. Lor, 591 N.W.2d 700, 704 
(Minn. 
1999).  See also, Gilstrap v. June Eisele Warren Trust, 
2005 WY 21, ¶ 12, 106 P.3d 858, 862 (Wyo. 2005).  A contract is 
construed as a whole and, if possible, all parts of the contract are 
harmonized.  Chergosky, 463 N.W.2d at 525-26; Dorr, ¶ 16, 146 P.3d  at 953. 
 Courts "attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract 
that would render a provision meaningless."  Chergosky, 463 N.W.2d  at 526.  
See also, Wells Fargo Bank 
Wyoming, N.A. v. Hodder, 2006 WY 128, ¶ 21, 144 P.3d 401, 409 (Wyo. 2006).  

 
 
[¶16]   Husband argues that, under the 
plain language of the premarital agreement, the choice of Minnesota law in Article 
15 does not extend to the method of amending or modifying the contract under 
Article 14.  Specifically, he argues 
that amending or modifying the agreement does not fall within the "validity, 
execution, enforcement and construction of the terms and provisions" language of 
Article 15.  We disagree.  The clear language used in Article 15 
broadly defines the scope of the choice-of-law provision.  Modification or amendment of the 
agreement falls within the ambit of "execution" of the contract.  The word "execution" means "the act of 
carrying out or putting into effect."  
Black's Law Dictionary 589 
(7th ed. 1999).  In the context of legal documents, 
"execute" means "to make valid by signing; to bring into its final, legally 
enforceable form".  Id.  
Obviously, the procedure for modifying or amending the premarital 
agreement requires execution of a document to change the original 
agreement.  Thus, under the terms of 
Articles 14 and 15, execution of an amendment to a premarital agreement must be 
accomplished in accordance with Minnesota law.  

 
 
[¶17]   Husband also suggests that, because 
Article 15 did not specifically refer to Article 14 or address the law 
applicable to amendment or modification of the premarital agreement, the 
parties' choice of Minnesota law does not apply to such 
amendments.  Again, we cannot agree 
with his interpretation of the agreement.  
It is clear from the general language of Article 15 that the parties 
intended the choice-of-law provision to apply broadly to the contract.  The agreement contains no specific 
provision indicating that they did not intend the choice-of-law provision to 
apply to modification of the contract.  
Other provisions of the agreement do not specifically speak to choice of 
applicable law.  If we were to carry 
Husband's argument to its natural conclusion, each provision would need to refer 
to Article 14 in order for Minnesota law to apply to that provision.  Clearly, that was not the parties' 
intent in incorporating a general choice-of-law provision into the 
contract.  

 
 
[¶18]   Finally, Husband argues that if the 
statutory requirements under § 519.11 are applied to modifications and 
amendments of the premarital agreement, Article 14 is essentially 
nullified.  As we stated earlier, 
Minnesota 
contract interpretation law requires us to attempt to avoid an interpretation 
which would render a provision of the contract meaningless.  Article 14 states that an amendment or 
modification would not be valid unless it was "in writing and executed and 
acknowledged by the parties."  
Husband claims that, by imposing the additional requirements from § 
519.11, the court effaces Article 14 because that provision only requires that 
an amendment be written, executed and acknowledged by the parties.  He interprets Article 14 as simply 
requiring the parties to sign a written document, like they did with the May 18, 
2003, amendment.  

 
 
[¶19]   We do not believe that imposing the 
statutory requirements for amendment or modification of a premarital agreement 
makes Article 14 ineffective.  The 
contract requires the amendment be "in writing," "executed" and "acknowledged by 
the parties."  The meaning of 
"acknowledge" in this context is "to recognize as genuine so as to give 
validity; avow or admit in legal form."  
Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary 17 (2002).  Section 
519.11 requires that, in order to be valid, the amendment must be "in writing, 
executed in the presence of two witnesses and acknowledged by the parties, 
executing the same before any officer or person authorized to administer an 
oath."  Thus, the contract required 
that the agreement be acknowledged, and the statute simply defined the specifics 
of how the acknowledgement was to be accomplished.2  We, therefore, reject Husband's argument 
that, in order to preserve its integrity, we must rule that Minnesota law cannot be 
applied to the modification provision.  

 
 
[¶20]   We conclude, therefore, under the 
clear and unambiguous language of the premarital agreement, Minnesota law applies to 
amendment of the agreement.   
That conclusion does not, however, completely end our analysis.  In resolving conflicts over what state's 
law applies to a particular problem, we have adopted Restatement (Second) of 
Conflict of Laws § 187 (1971 & Supp. 1989).  Resource Technology Corp. v. Fisher 
Scientific Co., 924 P.2d 972. 975 
(Wyo. 
1996).  That provision states: 

 
 
(1) The 
law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and 
duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the parties could 
have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that 
issue.

 
 
(2) The 
law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and 
duties will be applied, even if the particular issue is one which the parties 
could not have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to 
that issue, unless either

 
 
(a) the chosen state has no substantial 
relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable 
basis for the parties' choice, or

 
 
(b) application of the law of the chosen state 
would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially 
greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular 
issue[.]

 
 
Restatement, 
supra.  

 
 
[¶21]   The Restatement provision generally 
respects the parties' contractual choice of law.  However, as we stated in Resource Technology Corp., 924 P.2d  at 
975, citing Smithco Engineering, Inc. v. 
International Fabricators, Inc., 775 P.2d 1011, 1018 (Wyo. 1989), "we will 
not apply foreign law when it is contrary to the law, public policy, or the 
general interests of Wyoming's citizens."  
There is no argument in this case that Minnesota law pertaining to modification of a premarital 
agreement is contrary to Wyoming law, public policy, or the general 
interests of our citizens.  
Moreover, there is no doubt that the parties had sufficient contacts with 
Minnesota to 
justify applying that state's law to their disputes.  The record reveals that, at the time the 
parties executed the premarital agreement, they had significant contacts with 
Minnesota.  The premarital agreement states that 
Husband owned property in Minnesota and they planned to spend 
"considerable time" in that state during their marriage.  Thus, we conclude, under the 
Restatement, supra, the parties' 
choice of Minnesota law to govern the premarital 
agreement in general, and amendment of the agreement in particular, was 
valid.  

            

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶22]   The district court correctly held 
the plain language of the premarital agreement directed that Minnesota law applied to the procedure for amending the 
agreement, and the May 18, 2003, amendment did not comply with the applicable 
Minnesota 
statute.  Consequently, the district 
court correctly granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Wife, declaring 
the amendment unenforceable.   

 
 
[¶23]   Affirmed. 

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1In 
addition, the parties apparently were not represented by separate legal counsel 
at the time of execution of the amendment.

 
 

2As we 
noted in footnote 1 supra, § 519.11 
also imposes requirements for effective amendment of premarital agreements 
beyond those discussed here.   Because we hold that the parties failed 
to "acknowledge" the amendment in accordance with the contract and the statute, 
we do not need to discuss the other statutory 
requirements.