Court Opinion

ID: 9702215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:01:06.73929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:34.824725
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice, dissenting.
In this appeal we have been called upon to determine whether an antenuptial agreement entered into by Mrs. Geyer, appellant, and the decedent precludes her from exer*508cising her statutory right to take against the will of decedent. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203. The issues raised in this appeal provided us the opportunity to review our former decisions relating to the validity of antenuptial agreements and determine whether the societal changes that occurred in the interim require a modification of former principles articulated in this area.
Regrettably, after determining that change would be appropriate, with which I agree, Mr. Justice McDermott would create a more restrictive view than even prior law required. The Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court would make full and fair disclosure a requirement in every antenuptial agreement. This new disclosure would require not only a general statement of the financial resources of the parties, but also would require that the complaining party must have been made “aware of the statutory rights which [he or she is] relinquishing.” Slip op. at 429. Under present law, full and fair disclosure is not required until it is first determined by a reviewing court that the provision for the surviving spouse under the ante-nuptial agreement was not adequate. It is only after a finding that the provision for the surviving spouse was not sufficient to enable him or her to live “comfortably” after the death of the other partner to the marriage, in substantially the same way as that spouse had previously lived, that the issue of disclosure can be raised to save the validity of the agreement. Today the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court would place the burden upon the proponent of the agreement to establish its validity by demonstrating that the disclosure requirement has been met, regardless of the adequacy of the provision being made for the surviving spouse.
In my view it is time that we apply the traditional rules of contract to these agreements and therefore not only discard the consideration of the adequacy of the agreement but also recognize that the traditional arm’s length bargaining principle of contract law is diametrically opposed to the disclosure requirement. These agreements are nothing more than contracts and should be treated as such.
*509Appellant and decedent, both twice previously married and widowed, met in October, 1976. Appellant was 56 years of age and had three children from a previous marriage; decedent was 68 years of age with one son from his first marriage, five grandchildren and six great grandchildren. Shortly thereafter decedent expressed interest in marriage. Appellant was initially reluctant because remarriage would cause her to lose a Navy pension, based upon her second husband’s military service. She also expressed her desire to own her own home. An agreement dated December 30, 1976, was signed by the parties in which decedent agreed to give or bequeath a sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) to replace the Navy pension and to give his residence, free of encumbrances, plus the furnishings therein (less those specifically designated for his child or grandchildren) to appellant if appellant survived him. The parties married on January 9, 1977. The decedent passed away on May 1, 1982, with appellant surviving him.
A will dated July 13, 1981, was offered for probate, and testamentary letters were issued to decedent’s son, George W. Geyer (Executor), as executor of the estate. Appellant, as surviving spouse, elected to take against the will. The estate raised the antenuptial agreement as a bar to the election. After hearing, the Orphans’ Court permitted appellant’s election to take against the will, concluding that the antenuptial agreement was invalid because that agreement did not make reasonable provision for appellant and that decedent had not made full and fair disclosure to appellant. As an alternative ground for its ruling, that court also found that the decedent had breached the ante-nuptial agreement. The Superior Court reversed and ordered the estate to adhere to decedent’s expressed intention to fulfill the requirements of the antenuptial agreement.
I.
The law relating to antenuptial agreements initially developed at a time when the societal norm was a marriage in *510which the husband had a duty to provide the economic mainstay of the family while the wife was usually relegated to the management of the home and the raising of the children. Upon the death of the husband, the surviving wife traditionally was dependent upon the assets which weré left by her husband for her maintenance and support. Courts, reflecting the state interest in the protection of widows from public welfare, predicated the validity of ante-nuptial agreements upon the adequacy of the provision made for “... the wife’s future security and financial protection____” Barnhart v. Barnhart, 376 Pa. 44, 53, 101 A.2d 904, 908 (1954).
This protective role for the future well-being of the surviving widow caused courts to proceed upon the implicit “... realization that between persons in the prematrimonial state there is a mystical, confidential relationship which anesthetizes the senses of the female partner.” Gamble, The Antenuptial Contract, 26 U.Miami L.Rev. 692, 719 (1971-72). The court intervened as the protector of the “weaker” female and required the husband to make a full disclosure of his assets in view of such a “confidential relationship.” Id. at 720. Consistent with this view, this Court held: “The validity of antenuptial agreements was dependent upon the presence of one of two factors: (a) a reasonable provision for the wife, or (b) in the absence of such provision, a full and fair disclosure to the wife of the husband’s worth.” In re Flannery’s Estate, 315 Pa. 576, 580, 173 A. 303, 304 (1934).
The solicitous concern for the financial security of the surviving widow was evident from the language of the earlier decisions.
... [A] duty arises having no place in the ordinary contractual relationship to be frank and unreserved in the disclosure of all circumstances materially bearing upon the contemplated agreement. While such an agreement will not be invalidated by reason of the mere fact that the wife does not receive as much as she would be legally entitled to receive in the absence of the agreement, since *511the only purpose of such contracts is to change the provision he makes for her, it must be taken to be well settled that where no provision is made for the wife, or the provision made for her is unreasonably disproportionate to the then means of the intended husband, it raises a presumption of designed concealment and throws the burden on those alleging the validity of the agreement to show that it was fairly made: [citations omitted] ... ‘The true test of the adequacy of the consideration in an antenuptial agreement ... is whether the provision for the intended wife is sufficient to enable her to live comfortably after [the husband’s] death, in substantially the same way as, considering all the circumstances, she had previously lived.’ (footnote omitted) (emphasis added) In re Groffs Estate, 341 Pa. 105, 110, 19 A.2d 107, 109-110 (1941).
The obvious intention of the earlier decisions was to protect the intended wife from having her financial situation eroded by a deceiving suitor. In re Estate of Gelb, 425 Pa. 117, 228 A.2d 367 (1967); In re Zeigler’s Estate, 381 Pa. 436, 113 A.2d 271 (1955); In re McClellan’s Estate, 365 Pa. 401, 75 A.2d 595 (1950); In re Emery’s Estate, 362 Pa. 142, 66 A.2d 262 (1949); In re Groffs Estate, supra; In re Flannery’s Estate, supra. This concern is further evident in our decision in Barnhart v. Barnhart, supra, 376 Pa. at 53, 101 A.2d at 908:
in most cases of antenuptial agreements the parties to the contract are ordinarily concerned with the wife’s future security and financial protection,.... A majority of cases litigated are instances where the wife alleges that she has been deceived concerning the extent of her husband’s resources. This Court has consistently decided that the validity of such agreements requires the utmost of good faith between the parties, a reasonable provision made, or a full and fair disclosure of worth, (citations omitted)
The clear underlying assumption reflected in these decisions was that the intended wife was in an inferior bargain*512ing position and therefore incapable of participating in arm’s length bargaining with her future husband. Thus, when an objection was made to an antenuptial agreement the court would first look to whether there was a reasonable provision made for the intended wife. See, e.g., Kaufmann Estate, 404 Pa. 181, 137, 171 A.2d 48, 51 (1961). While the more recent formulations have used more sexually neutral language in describing the test to be employed in determining the validity of these agreements,1 see, e.g., In re Hillegass, 431 Pa. 144, 244 A.2d 672 (1968), most of these cases in this area relate to the surviving widow’s right of election.2
II.
Under traditional contract law the adequacy of consideration is not a factor to be considered in determining the validity and enforceability of a contract. Thomas v. Thomas Flexible Coupling Co., 353 Pa. 591, 46 A.2d 212 (1946); Hillcrest Foundation Inc. v. McFeaters, 332 Pa. 497, 2 *513A.2d 775 (1939); see generally 1 S. Williston on Contracts, § 115 (3d Ed.1957). It is also true that a requirement of “full and fair” disclosure is at odds with the arm’s length bargaining concept which is accepted under traditional contract law. Brown v. Hall, 495 Pa. 635, 435 A.2d 859 (1981); Frowen v. Blank, 493 Pa. 137, 425 A.2d 412 (1981); Young v. Kaye, 443 Pa. 335, 279 A.2d 759 (1971); Carrier v. William Penn Broadcasting Co., 426 Pa. 427, 233 A.2d 519 (1967). As noted, the doctrine of full and fair disclosure originated at a time when it was assumed that the woman was necessarily in an inferior bargaining position and required solicitous concern. For this reason the law also provided special rights to a surviving widow that were not given to the surviving widower. Act of April 8, 1833, P.L. 249, § 11 (repealed). It therefore followed that enhanced scrutiny was properly given to any contractual arrangement whereby the surviving wife may compromise that protection which the law had afforded.
The societal changes that have occurred during the second half of this century warrant reconsideration of the principles that initially governed these antenuptial agreements designed to determine the intended wife’s share to be given in the event of the prospective groom’s death. The wife is no longer necessarily the homemaker and the husband the breadwinner. Quite frequently both spouses are wage earners and there are instances where the wife’s income or earning capacity exceeds that of the husband. Although, unfortunately, we have as yet to reach sexual equality in the market place, there are compelling forces moving in that direction and hopefully the objective will be obtained in the near future. Additionally, there is now a strong public policy of constitutional dimension in this Commonwealth prohibiting any sexual discrimination in our laws. Pa. Const, art. 1, § 28; DiFlorido v. DiFlorido, 459 Pa. 641, 650-51, 331 A.2d 174, 179 (1975); Henderson v. Henderson, 458 Pa. 97, 101, 327 A.2d 60, 62 (1974). That policy has already impacted upon the law insofar as it has occasioned a change in the former provision that provided for the widow’s election to take against the will, which now *514is the election of a spouse regardless of sex. 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203. These sociological changes have brought about many adjustments in former common law concepts. See, e.g., Commonwealth ex rel. Spriggs v. Carson, 470 Pa. 290, 368 A.2d 635 (1977) (plurality opinion) (“tender years doctrine” employed in child custody cases is offensive to constitutional principle of equality of the sexes); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 462 Pa. 216, 340 A.2d 440 (1975) (doctrine of “coverture” requiring presumption that wife who commits crimes in husband’s presence was coerced by husband discarded); Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974) (support of children is equal responsibility of both mother and father); Married Women’s Property Act, Act of July 17, 1957, P.L. 969, No. 417, § 1, 48 P.S. § 32.1 (repealed 1985) (allowing express contracts between husband and wife and permitting married women to own property).
The prior stereotyped concept of individuals which presumed gender inferiority has given way to constitutional mandate and public policy which require gender neutrality. I would be the first to acknowledge that we have yet to achieve the stated goal of gender neutrality. Equally regrettable is that there is still a significant element in our society who appear to be determined to perpetuate former discriminatory practices against the female sex. However, we do not serve the cause of true equality by creating legal fictions, even when those fictions are designed to protect against some of these inequities. Moreover, I am not satisfied that the suggested scheme would serve the purpose that Mr. Justice McDermott envisions or that the need perceived by him actually exists.
As to the latter, antenuptial agreements are normally employed by more sophisticated parties who are well aware of the effect of such an agreement. These are individuals who, sometimes as a result of prior marriages or other relationships, acquired certain property and have definite plans for its disposition after their death — plans which they do not want interfered with as a result of the new relationship. The facts of this case provide the clearest example of *515parties who were, in fact, aware that their impending marriage would affect their rights in the subsequent disposition of their respective property and for that reason entered into the agreement to effectuate their plans for the disposition of the property in question.
It is quite true that there is a strong policy against one spouse attempting to disinherit the other spouse after that relationship has soured. This, of course, is the reason that the surviving spouse has been given the right to elect to take against a will providing for a testamentary disposition less favorable than that provided under the intestate laws. However, it has never been suggested that the surviving spouse cannot agree to accept a share less than the statutory provision nor Is it against public policy for parties to an impending marriage to make such a condition for entering into that marriage. Indeed, the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court ignores that in this very case the antenuptial agreement was initiated to satisfy the prospective wife who otherwise would have been reluctant to enter into that relationship. The purposes of such antenuptial agreements are unquestionably proper and it is the duty of courts to protect those commitments. The only legitimate' issue raised in this appeal was whether or not the alleged breach of the agreement was In fact a material breach so as to nullify the agreement. In resolving this question clearly the normal rules of contract would adequately protect all the parties involved.3 Unfortunately, the Opinion Announe*516ing the Judgment of the Court failed to address that question.
I, therefore, would agree with the Superior Court’s mandate remanding the matter to the Orphans’ Court. I would also permit the appellant the opportunity to attempt to establish any alleged breach.
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. The Act of April 8, 1833, P.L. 249 § 11 (repealed), specifically conferred the right to elect to take against the will on the surviving widow. Subsequently, the statute has been modified to permit either surviving spouse to have that election, 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203.

. In re Estate of Cummings, 493 Pa. 11, 425 A.2d 340 (1981) (surviving wife could not elect against decedent’s will where there was an inconsequential deviation not affecting the rights of the parties or altering the agreement); Estate of Friedman, 483 Pa. 614, 398 A.2d 615 (1978) (widow was barred by the terms of the antenuptial agreement from claiming half of the estate where decedent’s will was changed by operation of law and neither existence of oral contract nor waiver of the Dead Man’s Act were shown); In re Estate of Ratony, 443 Pa. 454, 111 A.2d 791 (1971) (surviving wife could not elect to take against decedent’s inter vivos conveyances 27 years after signing a valid postnuptial separation agreement which divided net proceeds from the sale of entireties property); In re Estate of Rosciolo, 434 Pa. 461, 258 A.2d 623 (1969) (widow barred from electing against decedent’s will by the terms of a valid antenuptial agreement expressly precluding such election); In re Estate of Vallish, 431 Pa. 88, 244 A.2d 745 (1968) (surviving widow could elect to take against decedent’s will where no provision was made for her in the antenuptial agreement). Although in a number of these cases the result precluded the election to take against the will, this conclusion was reached only after the Court had been satisfied that the surviving widow had been "fairly’ treated.

. The Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court seems to suggest that the decedent did in fact misrepresent the extent of his assets. See slip op. at 428. However, from a reading of the record, it is far from clear that such a misrepresentation was in fact made by the decedent. In any event, if in fact there was a misrepresentation, appellant would be entitled to seek relief under traditional contract principles. See, e.g., College Watercolor Group, Inc. v. William Newbauer, Inc., 468 Pa. 103, 360 A.2d 200 (1976); Myers v. Rubin, 399 Pa. 363, 160 A.2d 559 (1960); LaCourse v. Kiesel, 366 Pa. 38S, 77 A.2d 877 (1951); Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 164 (1981).
Additionally, the attempted creation of a new obligation of disclosure was entirely unnecessary in this case. As indicated in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Zappala, the terms of the contract itself provided for such a disclosure. Thus, noncompliance with that *516requirement would constitute a material breach, thereby invalidating the agreement.