Unconscionability in a Prenuptial Agreement
Unconscionability is one of the few arguments you can make to void a prenuptial agreement. The provisions of the agreement must be so one-sided that it “shocks the conscience of the court.” If the prenuptial agreement “shocks the conscience of the court,” the court can see fit not to enforce the prenup. In this article, we’ll address the matter of unconscionability in prenuptial agreements and take a look at one case where a spouse argued that the prenuptial agreement was “unconscionable,” but the court ultimately enforced it anyway.
Understanding case law on the topic
It’s very difficult to get a prenuptial agreement thrown out based on unconscionability. The standard is quite high in these cases. One such example is the case of Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch.
In the case of Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that while the provisions of the prenuptial agreement were very imbalanced in favor of one spouse, it ultimately did not rise to the standard of unconscionability.
The background of the case is as follows. Before they married, Dianne and Harry Hahamovitch signed a prenuptial agreement. Their marriage lasted for 22 years. In 2008, the couple filed for divorce. The trial court concluded that the prenup was valid under our state’s rules. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s conclusion and ruled that the language of the agreement was broad enough to waive Dianne’s right to any asset that was titled in Harry’s name, even though it was acquired during the marriage. Dianne argued that the agreement was “unconscionable” insofar as it placed her at a severe disadvantage and was remarkably one-sided.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that, where a prenuptial agreement provides that “neither spouse” will ever claim any interest in the other’s property, one spouse will be the sole owner of any property titled in their name, even though those assets were acquired during the marriage.
Examples of unconscionability under Florida law
There are two types of “unconscionability” under Florida law: Procedural and substantive. Procedural unconscionability occurs when the circumstances around drafting the agreement were patently unfair. Substantive unconscionability refers to individual provisions that are illegal, immoral, or violate public policy. In other words, there’s something wrong with the provision itself—not how the agreement was negotiated.
Examples of procedural unconscionability in a prenuptial agreement include:
- Last-minute agreements
- Threats or coercion
- Lack of independent legal counsel
- Complex or hidden terms
- Lack of opportunity to negotiate
- Misrepresentation of terms
- Language barriers without translation
Examples of substantive unconscionability include:
- Grossly unequal distribution of property
- Extreme waivers of alimony
- Provisions that violate public policy or statutory mandates
- Provisions that stipulate child support or custody
- Clauses that encourage divorce
- Illegal or immoral stipulations
Talk to a St. Petersburg Divorce Lawyer Today
Trying to void a prenuptial agreement? You’re in for an uphill battle, but it’s not impossible. Call the experienced St. Petersburg family lawyers at the Law Office of Kevin F. Coleman. We can help.
Source:
law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2015/sc14-277.html
