Listen to this post

Prenuptial agreements, also known as antenuptial agreements, are legal contracts entered into by couples before marriage to establish financial rights and obligations in the event of divorce or death. In Minnesota, these agreements are governed by both statutory law (Minn. Stat. § 519.11) and common law principles. However, to be enforceable, prenuptial agreements must meet stringent requirements concerning procedural fairness and substantive fairness at both the time of execution and enforcement.

Procedural Fairness in Prenuptial Agreements

1. Statutory Requirements for Procedural Fairness

Minnesota law provides a procedural “safe harbor” for prenuptial agreements if they are limited to determining the parties’ rights in nonmarital property and meet specific execution requirements under Minn. Stat. § 519.11. These requirements include:

  • The agreement must be in writing.
  • It must be signed by both parties.
  • The agreement must be notarized and witnessed no later than one day before the marriage ceremony.
  • Full disclosure of each party’s earnings, assets, and liabilities must be provided.

Failure to satisfy these requirements may render an agreement unenforceable under statutory law.

2. Common Law Considerations for Procedural Fairness

If a prenuptial agreement addresses financial issues beyond nonmarital property (such as spousal maintenance or division of marital property), it is subject to common law procedural fairness requirements as established in In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007). These requirements include:

  • Full and fair disclosure of each party’s financial situation.
  • Adequate consideration (meaning that the terms should not be one-sided or illusory).
  • Knowledge of material particulars, ensuring that each party fully understands the agreement and its impact.
  • Freedom from duress, undue influence, or coercion, meaning that the agreement must be entered into voluntarily and without pressure from one party.

If an agreement fails to meet any of these standards, it can be challenged in court.

Substantive Fairness in Prenuptial Agreements

Even if a prenuptial agreement satisfies procedural fairness, Minnesota courts will assess whether the agreement is substantively fair at two critical points: at the time of execution and at the time of enforcement.

1. Substantive Fairness at the Time of Execution

A prenuptial agreement is substantively fair at the time of execution if it reasonably protects the interests of both parties and does not result in an unconscionable outcome. The court considers:

  • The financial disparity between the parties.
  • Whether the disadvantaged party waived significant rights without adequate compensation.
  • Whether the agreement creates a grossly one-sided division of assets.

If a prenuptial agreement deprives one spouse of virtually all financial support or property rights upon divorce, the court may determine that it was overreaching and, therefore, unenforceable.

2. Substantive Fairness at the Time of Enforcement

Courts will also examine whether the enforcement of the prenuptial agreement would be oppressive or unconscionable due to changed circumstances. This principle was upheld in Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018), where the court ruled that a prenuptial agreement could be unenforceable if enforcing it would result in an inequitable hardship that was not anticipated at the time of execution. Factors that may indicate substantive unfairness include:

  • A significant increase in the wealth of one spouse while the other remains economically disadvantaged.
  • The birth of a child, particularly if it limits the earning potential of one spouse.
  • A dramatic shift in the parties’ financial positions, such as the loss of employment or unforeseen health issues.
  • Evidence of financial manipulation or coercion during the marriage.

Challenging a Prenuptial Agreement in Minnesota

A spouse seeking to challenge the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement must generally bear the burden of proof. However, if the agreement lacks adequate consideration, the burden shifts to the party seeking enforcement.

Grounds for challenging a prenuptial agreement include:

  1. Lack of Full Disclosure
    • If one spouse failed to disclose significant assets or liabilities, the agreement may be deemed invalid. In Rudbeck v. Rudbeck, 365 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), the court held that undisclosed financial information could void an agreement.
  2. Duress or Undue Influence
    • If one party pressured the other into signing the agreement without adequate time for review or independent legal counsel, the agreement may be invalid. Courts consider power imbalances in relationships when assessing claims of coercion.
  3. Unconscionability
    • If enforcing the agreement would leave one spouse impoverished while the other retains significant wealth, the court may refuse to enforce it. In McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1989), the court ruled that an agreement that deprives one party of any financial support is likely unconscionable.
  4. Ambiguous or Vague Terms
    • If the language of the agreement is unclear or open to multiple interpretations, courts may refuse to enforce it. Contracts must be sufficiently definite to be upheld in court.

Minnesota Case Law and Prenuptial Agreements

Minnesota courts have consistently emphasized the importance of fairness in prenuptial agreements. Key cases shaping the enforceability of these agreements include:

  • Slingerland v. Slingerland, 132 N.W. 326 (Minn. 1911) – Found that an agreement leaving a spouse “penniless” was not enforceable.
  • In re Estate of Serbus, 324 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 1982) – Reinforced the requirement for adequate consideration and fairness in antenuptial agreements.
  • Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018) – Established that enforcement of an antenuptial agreement must not lead to an “oppressive or unconscionable” result.

Conclusion: The Importance of Legal Guidance

Prenuptial agreements can serve as valuable legal tools to protect assets, clarify financial expectations, and prevent disputes in the event of divorce. However, they must be carefully drafted and executed to withstand legal scrutiny in Minnesota courts.

Given the complex interplay between statutory and common law procedural and substantive fairness requirements, individuals considering a prenuptial agreement should seek legal counsel to ensure compliance with Minnesota law.

If you are looking to create, enforce, or challenge a prenuptial agreement, our experienced Minnesota family law attorneys can guide you through the legal process and protect your rights. Contact us today for a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances and legal options.