Opinion ID: 1751169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Burden of Proof re: Invalidity.

Text: A party asserting the invalidity of an antenuptial agreement has the burden of proving invalidity. See In re Estate of Peterson, 221 Neb. 792, 381 N.W.2d 109 (1986). See, also, Gant v. Gant, supra (burden of demonstrating invalidity of antenuptial agreement is on the party asserting the agreement's invalidity); In re Estate of Lopata, 641 P.2d 952 (Colo.1982) (a party contesting the validity of an antenuptial agreement has burden of proving invalidity); In re Estate of Kester, 486 Pa. 349, 405 A.2d 1244 (1979) (burden of proof is on one seeking to invalidate an antenuptial agreement). Thus, the rule concerning the burden of proof to invalidate an antenuptial agreement favors the validity of antenuptial agreements and is, therefore, consistent with the notion that antenuptial agreements are useful instruments which can be helpful in ordering the financial affairs of spouses, particularly spouses who seek to protect the financial well-being of a child or children born of a prior marriage. In Strickland v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 181 Neb. 478, 488, 149 N.W.2d 344, 352 (1967), this court stated: Ordinarily the burden of proof as to the invalidity of an antenuptial contract is on the party alleging it; but if the contract is unjust and unreasonable to the prospective wife on its face, a presumption of fraud arises, the burden shifts, and it is incumbent on the husband to prove the validity of the contract. Consequently, we now expressly disapprove and reject the statement in Strickland v. Omaha Nat. Bank, supra : [I]f the contract is unjust and unreasonable to the prospective wife on its face, a presumption of fraud arises, the burden shifts, and it is incumbent on the husband to prove the validity of the contract.