The 5th District Court of Appeals in Dallas upheld a trial court’s finding that a pre-marital agreement was invalid and awarded the wife $1.39 million on July 3, 2012. Moore v. Moore, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5290 (Tex. App. Dallas July 3, 2012).
There are many lessons to be learned from the Moore case. For example, don’t say you need a pre-nup because you have a lot of “loans, liens and lawsuits” as Mr. Moore did in this case when in reality he was a millionaire. Also, make sure both parties are represented by good counsel.
In Texas, a pre-nup is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is requested proves that he or she did not sign the agreement voluntarily. Tex. Fam. Code § 4.006(a)(1).
The following 4 factors are considered when determining voluntariness in entering a pre-nup: 1. whether a party has had the advice of counsel; 2. misrepresentations made in procuring the agreement; 3. the amount of information provided; and, 4. whether information has been withheld. The court may also hear evidence as to fraud.
That being said, claiming you didn’t know what you were signing when you signed it isn’t enough to invalidate a contract in Texas. In fact, Texas law presumes that a party to a contract knows what he signed, the meaning of what he signed and can comprehend its legal effect. There are a number of exceptions to this principle as demonstrated in the Moore case. Each case is different and there are no bright line rules.
The evidence uncovered at the trial court level in Moore showed the wife signed the pre-nup a few hours before the wedding, that she had been incorrectly informed that it was reviewed and approved by her attorney, that it did not disclose husband’s assets and that it had generally been withheld from her until the morning of her walk down the isle. All of these facts influenced the court in finding that the wife did not sign the pre-nup voluntarily.
According to the Dallas Court, “voluntary” means “an action that is taken intentionally or by the free exercise of one’s will.” While the wife freely signed her name to the pre-nup, it wasn’t enough to make the agreement enforceable in this case with these specific facts. Therefore, the pre-nup was invalidated and the Moore assets were divided up according to “just and right” principles. For more information on “Just and Right“, please follow the link.