Delorean v. Delorean - 211 N.J. Super. 432, 511 A.2d 1257 (Super. Ct. 1986)

Rule:

In determining whether to enforce antenuptial agreements there are at least three requirements to be met. First, that there was no fraud or duress in the execution of the agreement or, to put it another way, that both parties signed voluntarily. Second, the agreement must not be "unconscionable." The fact that what a spouse receives under an antenuptial agreement is small, inadequate or disproportionate does not in itself render the agreement voidable if the spouse was not overreached and entered into the agreement voluntarily with full knowledge of the financial worth of the other person. Third, the spouse seeking to enforce the agreement made a full and complete disclosure of his or her financial wealth before the agreement was signed. Obviously, one cannot make a knowing and intelligent waiver of legal and financial rights unless fully informed of all of the facts; otherwise, one cannot know what is being waived.

Facts:

These parties, plaintiff John Z. Delorean and defendant Cristina Delorean, entered into an antenuptial agreement in May 1973, prior to their marriage. The potential assets could exceed $ 20 million and practically all of them were in the sole name of the plaintiff husband. Absent this agreement and considering that this was a thirteen-year marriage in which there were two minor children, under New Jersey law, defendant wife could reasonably have anticipated receiving approximately 50% of the marital assets at the time of divorce. But if this agreement was upheld, she will receive relatively little. Defendant wife asserted that this agreement should not be enforced because first, she was not provided with a full and complete disclosure of plaintiff’s financial affairs before she signed it, and undue influence was exerted upon her by plaintiff who possessed far greater financial knowledge and experience than she. Plaintiff then filed an action to determine validity of the antenuptial agreement and to determine whether an arbitrator's decision in California declaring the agreement valid was enforceable in New Jersey. Defendant appealed an arbitrator's decision enforcing the antenuptial agreement.

Issue:

Should the antenuptial agreement be enforced?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court upheld an antenuptial agreement and enforced the arbitrator's decision. The court found that the parties voluntarily signed the agreement, despite defendant signing only hours before marriage. The court ruled that the agreement was not unconscionable because defendant still retained sizable income. That, under New Jersey law, the court determined that plaintiff did not make required complete and full disclosure of assets prior to agreement because he did not fully inform defendant what those assets were. However, the court held that it was the California law that controlled because the agreement specified California as choice of law and both parties had significant contacts there. Thus, under California law, a complete disclosure of assets was not required, in such case, the court held that plaintiff met California's disclosure requirements. Lastly, the arbitrator's decision complied with N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:24-8 and had to be upheld. As the use of a California arbitrator in a case requiring the application of California law was logical.