Court Opinion

ID: 9790082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:53.517526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:26.063119
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority correctly points out that the relationship between these parties is fiduciary in character. Kosik v. George, 253 Or 15, 452 P2d 560 (1968); Norris and Norris, 51 Or App 43, 48, 624 P2d 636, rev den 291 Or 151 (1981). The fiduciary relationship results from the nature of the confidential relation between persons contemplating marriage and not dealing at arms’ length. Newton v. Pickett et al, 201 Or 225, 230, 269 P2d 508 (1954).
“A fiduciary relationship exists in all cases where there has been a special confidence reposed in one who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing the confidence.” Starkweather v. Shaffer, 262 Or 198, 205, 497 P2d 358 (1972).
The majority is also correct that, between persons contemplating marriage, an antenuptial agreement will be upheld when there has been
“* * * a full and frank disclosure of all circumstances materially bearing on the contemplated agreement, generally including full disclosure of assets:
*490“ ‘The exercise of good faith necessitates disclosure by the prospective husband of all material facts relating to the amount, character and value of his property, so that the prospective wife may have sufficient knowledge on which to base her decision to enter into the agreement.’ 2 Lindey, Separation Agreements and Ante-Nuptial Contracts 90-43, § 90 (1967) and many cases cited thereunder.” Bauer v. Bauer, 1 Or App 504, 507-08, 464 P2d 710 (1970).
Antenuptial agreements are looked on with favor, but that is not to say that they should be upheld when the party relying on the agreement to exclude a spouse from participation in the marital estate has not made the disclosure the law requires. One who is in a position of trust as a fiduciary must discharge his obligation himself. He may not excuse himself by claiming that the spouse could have informed herself or have better protected herself had she sought the advice of a lawyer.
The trial judge correctly concluded that husband had an affirmative duty to inform wife fully regarding the consequences of executing the agreement proffered to her, in accordance with Kosik v. George, supra, 253 Or at 23. Having heard the testimony of the parties, he concluded that the agreement was invalid because husband, by his own admission, did not fulfill that duty. Husband’s own evidence as to what he explained to wife was wholly inadequate in my judgment to satisfy his duty of full disclosure. Husband testified:
“I explained to her my situation that the stuff that I have I would like to preserve for my children and also that I would hold her harmless of any debts on things that would come out of the business.”
He recalls no further discussion with her as to the content or terms of the agreement. He did not testify that he explained to her the amount, character or value of his assets. I would conclude that, under these facts, husband did not adequately inform wife of all circumstances materially bearing on the contemplated agreement.
The majority says in effect that it was not necessary for husband to inform wife about his property, because she was familiar with all aspects of his businesses and handled the bookkeeping and payroll and was in charge of ten business *491checking accounts. The majority’s statement that she was familiar with every aspect of husband’s businesses is unsupported by the record. It may be conceded that she knew something, perhaps a great deal, about his business. That is not to say, however, that she knew all the material facts regarding the amount, character and value of his property.
Not only does husband’s testimony about what he told wife concerning his property and the agreement fail to make out the required disclosure, the agreement itself fails to do so. The agreement consists of seven pages of legalese that essentially boils down to “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours.” It says nothing about the nature or value of his property.
I agree with the majority when it says that wife cannot intentionally fail to read the agreement and later claim that she was not fully informed about its contents. I point out, however, that she may not be charged with more knowledge than the agreement would have imparted to her had she read it. In other words, if the agreement was sufficient to satisfy husband’s legal duty to make a full and fair disclosure, she could be held to have read and understood it. However, I conclude that, had she read the agreement, it would not have given her the information necessary to satisfy the requirements of Bauer v. Bauer, supra, that a disclosure be made of all material facts relating to the amount, character and value of husband’s property.
Likewise, the failure of wife to take her husband’s attorney’s advice to see a lawyer of her own does not absolve husband of his affirmative duty as a fiduciary. Although wife may have been improvident in failing to seek legal advice and, although in a case of a marginally adequate disclosure that factor could be weighty, see Coward and Coward, 35 Or App 677, 680, 582 P2d 834 (1978), the disclosure here was not marginally adequate. It is precisely because a relationship of trust and confidence exists between persons contemplating marriage that they might not take the precaution to protect themselves that they would take in an arms’ length transaction with a stranger. It is precisely because there is an emotional bond of trust between persons contemplating marriage that they may not read agreements dealing with the *492property of their future spouse or consult attorneys concerning the legal implications of agreements regarding property. It seems unreasonable to me to fault wife for failing to take a potentially adversary position with her future husband. That is the reason the law requires a person who makes a contract with one to whom he has a fiduciary relationship to act in the interest of the one entitled to repose confidence.
As the majority states, the validity of this agreement depends on the circumstances of the particular case and the degree of sophistication possessed by the parties. This is not a case where “both [parties] were experienced business people and each possessed substantial assets.” Merrill v. Merrill, 275 Or 653, 657, 552 P2d 249 (1976). The trial court found that, at the time of the parties’ marriage, wife had a net worth of approximately $8,000 and husband had a net worth of $1,926,000 or $1,140,000. The record reveals that at the time of the marriage husband was 41 years old, had been married three times before this marriage and had an employment history of myriad different jobs, including budget manager for Goodyear Rubber Co. for the Willamette Valley, owner and operator of an outdoor and hardware store, restaurants, taverns and the Bend Airport, and extensive experience in the construction business. Wife was 30 years old at the time of the marriage, had been married once before and had worked for 12 years as a dental assistant in Portland before moving to Bend. Under these facts, I would hold husband strictly to the standard of good faith as a fiduciary in a case where, as in this one, only he stood to gain. His offer to hold wife harmless for his business debts, given the minimum assets wife had, is not over generous.
In summary, I would conclude that there is no evidence that, through her participation in husband’s business as a bookkeeper, wife acquired sufficient knowledge of the value of his assets to excuse the duty to make a full disclosure. Husband’s testimony as to what he orally communicated to her concerning the agreement was insufficient to satisfy the disclosure required by law (not by chivalry) of a fiduciary. Wife’s failure to read an agreement that, if read, would not satisfy that duty, does not aid husband, nor does the fact that wife failed to seek an attorney bar her from participating in the marital assets.
*493Having found the agreement void, the trial court concluded that an equitable award was to give wife 12 percent of the parties’ remaining assets,1 in addition to the amount of $6,200, which was her specific contribution to the marriage, and distributed the marital assets accordingly. I would affirm.

The trial court found that the parties suffered heavy losses during the marriage and that, by January 31,1982, their net worth was approximately $191,700.