Prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable

Where the trial court determined that the parties’ prenuptial agreement was enforceable under the Premarital Agreement Act, the evidence supports the court’s findings that husband made a fair disclosure of assets and that wife was not coerced into signing the agreement. Further, the court had “reason to doubt” testimony from wife’s expert that wife “was incapable of contravening husband’s wishes.”

Legal standards

“Under the PAA, an agreement is unenforceable if it ‘was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that person (i) was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party; and (ii) did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided.’ … Code § 20-151(A)(2) (emphasis added).

“Additionally, the PAA provides that ‘[r]ecitations in the agreement shall create a prima facie presumption that they are factually correct.’ …

“Our case law establishes that an agreement is unconscionable if (1) there is a ‘gross disparity in the value exchanged’ and (2) if ‘oppressive influences affected the agreement to the extent that the process was unfair and the terms of the resulting agreement unconscionable.’ …

“[I]t is for the fact finder to determine what, if any, disparity exists in the value exchanged, and what, if any, oppressive influences affected the agreement; the ultimate conclusion from those facts is a question of law.

“Finally, the PAA and our case law places the burden on wife to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement is unenforceable.”

Asset disclosure

“Wife argues in her first assignment of error that ‘[t]he [c]ourt erred in determining that the Plaintiff and Defendant made full disclosures of their assets prior to the Premarital Agreement.’ However, this argument’s premise is flawed.

“The circuit court did not find that the parties made a ‘full disclosure of their assets,’ nor does the Code require them to do so. The circuit court ruled that husband made an ‘adequate’ disclosure of his assets.

“When an appellant ‘has assigned error to a ruling that the circuit court did not make, the circuit court could not and did not err in the manner alleged by [appellant] in the assignment of error. Thus, we cannot take cognizance of the claimed error.’”

Alleged coercion

Wife argues that the circuit court erroneously determined “that the husband did not coerce wife into signing the agreement and that wife was able to make an informed decision as to whether she should sign the agreement. …

“The record contains substantial support for the circuit court’s findings. Husband told wife at least six months prior to the wedding that he insisted on a premarital agreement. Wife set up the drafting of the premarital agreement with Mr. Hooe. Husband and wife went to Mr. Hooe’s office together, reviewed the document with Mr. Hooe, made changes to the document, and signed and notarized the agreement.

“Husband did not threaten to evict wife from the home if they weren’t married or if she didn’t sign the agreement; indeed, he told her that their relationship would continue as it had for the previous ten years.

“While the evidence does show that husband and wife had a tumultuous relationship prior to their marriage, husband testified that the verbal abuse was mutual. Wife would not be rendered penniless under the agreement, and she was fully capable of providing for herself.

“There is no evidence in the record that wife was unaware of the nature of the document, and husband’s evidence is that she was aware of the contents of the document.

“Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by finding that husband did not coerce wife into signing the agreement and that wife was capable of entering into a binding contract.”

Expert’s testimony

“‘It is well established that the trier of fact ascertains a witness’ credibility, determines the weight to be given to their testimony, and has the discretion to accept or reject any of the witness’ testimony.’ …

“While wife correctly notes that the circuit court is not permitted to ‘disregard uncontradicted evidence of unimpeached witnesses which is not … inconsistent with the facts appearing in the record,’ there is substantial evidence in the record that contradicted wife’s evidence. …

“[T]he circuit court had reason to doubt the testimony of wife’s expert, Hillary Richards.” Richards testified that wife was unable to oppose husband’s wishes and that wife did not have the ability to refuse to sign the agreement.

“Richards only began consulting with wife twenty-two years after the execution of the agreement. Her opinion was based exclusively on facts told to her by wife; Richards never interviewed husband.

“Richards was also unable to specifically recall the research upon which she based her conclusion. These factors all go to the weight of the evidence, and the circuit court clearly considered them when determining the weight of Richards’ testimony.

“Additionally, there is evidence in the record that is inconsistent with wife’s evidence that she was incapable of making decisions or standing up to people. Wife sold over twenty houses for husband as a realtor.

“Wife initiated conversations about getting married and repeatedly pushed for marriage despite husband’s objections. Wife also temporarily moved out of the shared residence prior to marriage. Wife testified that the reason she signed the agreement was ‘because he wouldn’t marry me if I didn’t … I love him,’ not that she felt that she was forced to sign.

“Although wife’s testimony and the testimony of her witnesses conflict with husband’s testimony, the circuit court was entitled to weigh husband’s evidence more heavily than wife’s and did not commit error by doing so.”

Affirmed.

Shifflet v. Shifflet, Record No. 0606-21-3, Jan. 11, 2022. CAV (Humphreys) from Augusta County Circuit Court (Goodwin). Danita S. Alt for appellant. James B. Glick for appellee. VLW 022-7-007, 10 pp. Unpublished.