Hodges explained that he was indeed not qualified to give an appraisal and that he was not attempting to give one. The trial court overruled the objection, explaining that the objection went to the weight of the testimony. On appeal, husband challenges the trial court's conclusion that the prenuptial agreement is invalid. He argues that he informed wife of all of his assets, gave her ample opportunity to review the agreement and to insist on amendments to which he agreed and insisted that she consult with her own counsel about the terms of the agreement before executing it. He argues that, in fact, she knew about his assets and had personally viewed nearly every one.
Wife contends that the trial court correctly concluded that the agreement is invalid.
According to wife, the law requires full and complete disclosure of the value of each asset and the precise nature of the ownership interest in it, which information husband did not make available in this case. The validity of a prenuptial agreement is determined in the context of the circumstances in which it was executed. There is no hard and fast rule requiring disclosure of the precise nature of the interest in, and the value of, each item of property. In subsequent decisions, however, we have upheld the validity of prenuptial agreements without such detailed information. The wife did not have legal counsel of her own, and, apparently, the agreement did not contain detailed information about the value of the property involved.