A Georgia prenuptial agreement that leaves one spouse with far less than the other is not unconscionable for that reason alone.
The Rule
In Adams v. Adams, 278 Ga. 521 (2004), the Georgia Supreme Court held “[t]hat the antenuptial agreement may have perpetuated the already existing disparity between the parties’ estates does not in and of itself render the agreement unconscionable.”
When the agreement was signed, the wife ran her own business and had about $30,000 in assets. The husband owned several businesses and had a net worth of roughly $4.5 million. Their agreement gave her $10,000 for each year of the marriage, which came to a $90,000 lump sum. The Court enforced it.
What the Rule Depends On
Read the whole sentence, though. The Court said disparity was not enough “when, as here, there was full and fair disclosure of the assets of the parties prior to the execution of the agreement, and Wife entered into the agreement fully, voluntarily, and with full understanding of its terms after being offered the opportunity to consult with independent counsel.”
So the lopsided result survived because the process behind it was sound. Disclosure and a real chance at your own lawyer are what make an unequal bargain enforceable.
The Same Result in Mallen
Mallen v. Mallen, 280 Ga. 43 (2005), reached the same conclusion where the wife pointed to the disparity in the parties’ financial situations and business experience. The Court found the agreement did not fit the definition of an unconscionable contract and applied Adams. There, the husband’s net worth exceeded $8.5 million when the agreement was signed and the wife’s was about $10,000.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!