Court Opinion

ID: 9559508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:30:23.132298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:15.438694
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
specially concurring:
I agree with the result sustained by the majority under the facts and circumstances of this case. Hudson v. Hudson, 350 P.2d 596 (Okl.1960) quoted by the majority recites the general rule in Oklahoma that antenuptial contracts, if just and reasonable, are favored by law and ordinarily will be enforced if entered into freely and without fraud.1 I do not agree however, that an antenuptial agreement which contemplates or encourages possible divorce should be equally enforceable.
Generally an antenuptial contract is not against public policy unless the terms of the agreement encourage divorce.2 But provisions in such an agreement which facilitate divorce or separation by providing for a settlement only in the event of such occurrence are against public policy.3 Further, only if the contract relates to the disposition of property rather than altering support obligations imposed by law should it be upheld.4 The majority’s sanction of ante-nuptial agreements is too broad.
*368I am authorized to state that HODGES, C. J., and WILLIAMS and BARNES, JJ., concur in the views herein expressed.

. In re Cole’s Estate, 85 Okl. 69, 205 P. 172 (1922); Leonard v. Prentice, 171 Okl. 522, 43 P.2d 776 (1935); Blasingame v. Gaithright, Okl., 284 P.2d 431 (1955). But see Huber v. Culp, 46 Okl. 570, 149 P. 216 (1915).

. In re Estate of Murdock, 213 Kan. 837, 519 P.2d 108 (1974).

. In re Marriage of Higgason, 10 Cal.3d 476, 110 Cal.Rptr. 897, 516 P.2d 289 (1973).

. Id. p.295.