Opinion ID: 2103674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Enforcement under the Act

Text: Analysis of the enforcement provisions in § 15-17-6 of the act reveals that, in Rhode Island, a party seeking to render an agreement unenforceable must meet a heavy burden. To avoid enforcement of a premarital agreement, the party against whom the enforcement is sought must show, pursuant to § 15-17-6(a) and (b), that (1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; and (2) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement; (i) That party was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party; (ii) 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 (iii) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party. (b) The burden of proof as to each of the elements required in order to have a premarital agreement held to be unenforceable shall be on the party seeking to have the agreement declared unenforceable and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. (Emphasis added.) When the Rhode Island Legislature adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1987, it substituted and for or at the end of subsection (a)(1) of § 15-17-6. Unif. Premarital Agreement Act § 6 9B U.L.A. 49 note (Supp. 1994)(Action in Adopting Jurisdictions). The Legislature thus clearly evidenced the intent to preserve the validity of such agreements by requiring that the party challenging the enforceability of an agreement bear the burden of proving all the elements in § 15-17-6(a)(1) and (2). Moreover, as further evidence of a policy of maintaining the integrity of such agreements, the Legislature inserted into the enforcement section of the act subsection (b) of § 15-17-6, a subsection absent from the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Id. That addition places on the party seeking to have a premarital agreement declared unenforceable the burden of proving the above elements by clear and convincing evidence, a standard under which the trier of fact must believe that the truth of the facts asserted by the proponent is highly probable. Parker v. Parker, 103 R.I. 435, 442, 238 A.2d 57, 61 (1968)(citing Cook v. Michael, 214 Or. 513, 330 P.2d 1026 (1958)). The plaintiff, as noted supra, to the surprise of his own attorney and opposing counsel, testified at trial that he was not present at the signing of the agreement and that he did not sign it. The plaintiff's counsel, however, candidly conceded at oral argument that plaintiff did sign the agreement voluntarily. Thus, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he did not execute the agreement voluntarily. This issue is critical because without clear and convincing evidence of involuntariness, the agreement cannot be rendered unenforceable. Consequently, we conclude that this agreement is enforceable. We note that the trial justice invalidated the agreement because he found that it was unconscionable. We disagree with that finding. If we assume arguendo that the trial justice correctly concluded that the agreement was unconscionable, such a finding still would not provide a sufficient basis on which to refuse its enforcement because, under the act, proof of both involuntary execution and nondisclosure and/or waivers are required in addition to a finding of unconscionability. Section 15-17-6. [1] We also note that plaintiff has failed to prove defendant's unfair or inadequate disclosure of assets. At trial, defendant testified that prior to her marriage to plaintiff, she told plaintiff that she owned a house, a disclosure plaintiff never denied. He had, in fact, visited with defendant and her family at the house before the marriage. Thus, plaintiff failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of defendant's property. The agreement between plaintiff and defendant provided that defendant's property be maintained as her separate property; that defendant would retain nothing from plaintiff if she initiated a divorce but would retain half of any and all property that she acquired under the agreement if plaintiff divorced her. The trial justice, however, found that defendant acquired everything through the agreement. It is well settled that the findings of fact made by a trial justice, sitting without a jury, are afforded great weight and will not be disturbed by this court on appeal unless it can be shown that such findings are clearly wrong or that the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence. Casey v. San-Lee Realty, Inc., 623 A.2d 16, 19 (R.I. 1993)(quoting Raheb v. Lemenski, 115 R.I. 576, 579, 350 A.2d 397, 399 (1976)). In the instant case the trial justice's finding that defendant acquired everything through the agreement plainly contradicted the agreement's unambiguous language regarding property division. To the extent the trial justice based his finding of unconscionability on a misreading of the agreement, the finding is clearly erroneous. Section 15-17-6(d) states that the issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law, and under subsection (a)(2) the agreement must be shown to have been unconscionable when it was executed. The act, like the Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act before it, establishes the standard of unconscionability in the negotiations between parties and thereby provides protection against overreaching, concealment of assets, and sharp dealing not consistent with the obligations of marital partners to deal fairly with each other. Unif. Premarital Agreement Act § 6 cmt. 9B U.L.A. 376, 377 (1987). In light of the fact that at the time the agreement was executed, defendant had two adult children from a previous marriage whom she wanted to protect and the fact that plaintiff had no living relatives, we are of the opinion that the division of property set forth in the agreement does not arise to the unconscionable level of overreaching or sharp dealing. Although it is undisputed that plaintiff did not have the assistance of independent counsel when the agreement was signed, the act does not require the presence of independent counsel as a condition for the enforceability of an agreement. Although the issue has not previously been addressed by this court, other jurisdictions have refused to require independent counsel as a condition for enforcing premarital agreements. See In re Marriage of Sokolowski, 232 Ill. App.3d 535, 543-44, 173 Ill.Dec. 701, 707, 597 N.E.2d 675, 681 (1992)(holding there is no requirement that the parties to an antenuptial agreement be represented by an attorney); Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 400-01, 581 A.2d 162, 166 (1990) (rejecting a per se requirement that a party to a premarital agreement must have independent-counsel advice). At trial, plaintiff's attorney attempted to elicit testimony from plaintiff regarding his physical and mental capacity to enter into contracts. The trial justice disallowed the testimony because plaintiff had failed to plead incapacity in his complaint. It is well settled that matters not properly raised at trial may not be raised for the first time on appeal, Fiske v. MacGregor, Div. of Brunswick, 464 A.2d 719, 726 (R.I. 1983); see also Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank v. de Beru, 553 A.2d 544, 547 (R.I. 1989); Cok v. Cok, 479 A.2d 1184, 1188 (R.I. 1984), and thus the issue of plaintiff's capacity to enter into contracts is not properly before this court.