Opinion ID: 1936968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: postnuptial agreement

Text: Marcovitz argues that [t]he only allowable postnuptial agreements in Nebraska are those made in contemplation of death, wherein Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2316 [(Reissue 1995) ] authorizes waiver by contract of a surviving spouse's `right of election.' In re Estate of [Kopecky ], 6 Neb. App. 500, 505, 574 N.W.2d 549, 553 (1998). Brief for appellant at 28. He also contends that the postnuptial agreement is invalid and unenforceable because there was inadequate disclosure, no consideration and such agreements at the time allegedly made were against public policy of this state. (Emphasis omitted.) Brief for appellant at 27. Marcovitz errs in evaluating the validity of the postnuptial agreement under Nebraska law. The terms of the postnuptial agreement expressly dictated that it be interpreted under Michigan law, where one of the parties alleges it was executed in 1992. The Michigan Court of Appeals has addressed the validity of postnuptial agreements in Rockwell v. Estate of Leon Rockwell, 24 Mich.App. 593, 180 N.W.2d 498 (1970), which is the most recent published opinion from Michigan addressing that issue. The court stated: Post-nuptial agreements are not invalid per se. ... There are several situations in which Michigan Law recognizes the validity of agreements such as the one involved in the instant case. Post-nuptial agreements made during an existing separation are thought to further judicial policy favoring settlement of controversies over litigation.... In addition, Michigan is one of the majority of jurisdictions that approve post-nuptial agreements in which a wife releases her interest in her husband's property on his death ... if it is a fair and voluntary one for a fair consideration.... However, objections are validly raised to post-nuptial agreements where those agreements seek to effectuate a separation or contemplate a future separation. (Citations omitted.) Id. at 596-97, 180 N.W.2d at 500. Under Rockwell, the postnuptial agreement in this case is valid. In the agreement, each party released any interest he or she might have in the estate of the other if one should die, and each party also waived any interest in the separate property of the other upon separation or divorce. While Michigan has invalidated postnuptial agreements where those agreements seek to effectuate a separation or contemplate a future separation, that rule is not applicable here. Id. at 597, 180 N.W.2d at 500. The Rockwell court, in upholding a postnuptial agreement, said that [t]here is nothing in this record to suggest that the agreement was calculated to bring about a separation or that a separation was contemplated by the parties. Id. The Rockwell court distinguished another case in which a postnuptial agreement was held invalid because there, the parties contemplated a separation in the near future. Id., citing Day v. Chamberlain, 223 Mich. 278, 193 N.W. 824 (1923). In our case, there is likewise no evidence that Marcovitz and Rogers were contemplating separation or divorce at the time they executed the agreement. The agreement itself recites that this Agreement is made without either party having the intention to separate or initiate a divorce or dissolution proceeding. Under Michigan law, the postnuptial agreement is valid.