Opinion ID: 2569463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the district court erred by applying the terms of the premarital agreement

Text: Janet contends that the district court erred by applying the terms of the premarital agreement without determining its validity and substantive fairness. Janet primarily argues that Gary, in violation of the fiduciary duties that he owed to her, failed to make adequate disclosures regarding his income before she signed the agreement. See, e.g., Fick v. Fick, 109 Nev. 458, 464, 851 P.2d 445, 450 (1993) (recognizing that fiancés owe a fiduciary duty to each other which requires them to provide a full and fair disclosure of the nature and extent of their property and income prior to executing a premarital agreement). The legislature adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1989. The provisions of the act are applicable to any premarital agreement executed on or after October 1, 1989. 1989 Nev. Stat., ch. 472, § 22, at 1009. Since Janet and Gary executed their agreement in 1990, the provisions of the act, codified in NRS Chapter 123A, apply. NRS 123A.080 provides that: 1. A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that: (a) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; (b) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed; or (c) Before execution of the agreement, that party: (1) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party; (2) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and (3) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party. NRS 123A.080 puts the burden of proving the invalidity of the agreement on the party challenging the agreement. Since Janet's amended answer admitted the validity of the premarital agreement, we conclude that the district court was under no obligation to independently determine the validity and substantive fairness of the agreement.