Gross v. Gross - 11 Ohio St. 3d 99, 464 N.E.2d 500 (1984)

Rule:

Provisions contained within antenuptial agreements providing for the disposition of property and awarding sustenance alimony upon a subsequent divorce of the parties are not void per se as being against public policy. Such agreements are valid and enforceable if three basic conditions are met: (1) if they have been entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching; (2) if there was a full disclosure, or full knowledge, and understanding, of the nature, value and extent of the prospective spouse's property; and (3) if the terms do not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce.

Facts:

Prior to their marriage, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement.  Subsequently, the former wife filed for a divorce. The divorce was granted on grounds of extreme cruelty by the former husband. Under the antenuptial agreement, the former wife's maintenance was limited to a maximum of $ 200 per month for a period of 10 years, and the former wife was not entitled to any division of the former husband's property. 

Issue:

Are antenuptial agreements which concern divorce or separation and subsequently provide for the disposition or division of property and for sustenance alimony, invalid as being repugnant to public policy upon the basis of promoting marital discord?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the agreement was valid when entered into by the parties. Provisions contained within antenuptial agreements providing for the disposition of property and awarding sustenance alimony upon a subsequent divorce of the parties are not void per se as being against public policy. Such agreements are valid and enforceable if three basic conditions are met: (1) if they have been entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching; (2) if there was a full disclosure, or full knowledge, and understanding, of the nature, value and extent of the prospective spouse's property; and (3) if the terms do not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce.The court found that the agreement had been entered into in good faith, with full disclosure of the parties' assets, and was not for the purpose of profiteering. The court held that the trial court's finding that the former husband had been at fault in the divorce did not abrogate the agreement, nor was the former husband prevented from enforcing the agreement. But the court held that the provisions for maintenance were unconscionable as a matter of law and voidable by the former wife. The court stated that the wealth of the former husband grew considerably during the parties' 14-year marriage. The court stated that the former wife's standard of living had changed dramatically during the marriage and that the maintenance provisions would have been a hardship for her.