ILNews

Prenuptial agreements change with time but remain tricky

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Prenuptial agreements are not written to be fair. Nor should they be, according to some Indiana attorneys who draft them.

“It’s unfair no matter how you look at it,” said Marvin H. Mitchell, a partner with Mitchell Dick Hurst & McNelis LLC in Indianapolis, who recently shared with attorneys his advice for drafting effective premarriage agreements.

il-prenup09-15col.jpg Attorneys James Reed, left, and co-presenter Marvin Mitchell talk about how to draft effective premarriage agreements during a recent event hosted by the Indianapolis Bar Association. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“They’re not intended to be fair. Someone is getting the benefit,” explained Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner James A. Reed, who joined Mitchell in an Indianapolis Bar Association panel discussion recently.

“Fifty percent of premarital agreements will be closely scrutinized in a judicial setting,” Mitchell estimated. Reed suggested that figure could be higher, because people with prenup agreements typically are in second marriages, which experience a higher rate of breakups than first marriages.

“You have to presume that this agreement will be challenged and your file will be reviewed,” Reed said.

Mitchell and Reed discussed one of the largest Indiana court cases in which a prenuptial agreement was involved, DeHaan v. DeHaan, 572 N.E.2d 1315, 1320, decided by the Court of Appeals in 1991. Jon and Christel DeHaan battled over the fortune they had created in RCI, a timeshare marketing company. Mitchell quipped that the amount at stake was enough to fund the deficit of a Central American nation.

Though the DeHaans had a prenup in which Christel DeHaan would have been entitled to 20 percent ownership in the company in the event of divorce, the trial court ruled that she was entitled to 50 percent of the company’s value – $67 million – because of the partnership nature of the business. The appeals court affirmed the ruling but reduced the award by $20 million for tax purposes.

Those types of premarriage agreements, in which wealth preservation is the key factor, remain the most common. Mitchell and Reed suggested that if parties entering a long-term relationship aren’t able to discuss assets and expectations before marriage, problems are likely.

Clarity is paramount, Mitchell said. “At the very least, have consistency about what is protected property” throughout the document. “Try to anticipate problems so the client won’t be moody. … We want the judge to see this is plain, obvious and clean.”

A 2010 survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found 73 percent of divorce attorneys reported increases in prenup agreements in the prior five years, and more than half said more women were initiating the requests. A 2012 AAML survey found a similar increase in postnuptial agreements.

Mitchell and Reed offered premarriage agreements and forms that can serve as models to create prenups that comply with the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act adopted by the Legislature in 1995.

Indiana is one of the few states that does not require financial disclosure in premarriage agreements, but Mitchell and Reed counseled that it was good practice to do so, and the attorneys they questioned agreed. Of about 30 in attendance, none said they had drafted a prenup that didn’t include financial disclosures.

Prenups can be attacked on bases such as the agreement was not voluntary, is unconscionable or ambiguous, or will result in hardship. Mitchell advised attorneys to include clauses in prenup agreements for the wealthier spouse to pay attorney fees in the event the agreement is challenged by the other party; some attorneys said they insist on such language.

Mitchell also warned against language that, for instance, would strictly limit a spouse’s entitlement to 10 percent of an estate. Such terms are “inviting the judge to find a problem with the agreement.”

Reed said it’s important for heirs to be involved in the discussions. He said the entire family – wealth originators, adult children and their heirs should sit down and talk frankly.

“It’s a tough conversation to have,” Reed said. But he said when adult children or heirs learn about trusts or assets they were unaware of, “that may change the way they look at their life.”

While the agreements are often unfair to one of the parties, Mitchell and Reed said those that strive for some degree of fairness are less likely to be challenged. Reed said prenups are also useful planning tools, especially for someone’s long-term needs.

“What’s the incentive for the much younger spouse” to provide care for an older spouse, for instance, Reed asked. Using tools such as escalating percentages of asset distribution over time can provide those incentives and give the older spouse peace of mind.

“It sounds very mercenary, but that’s real life,” Reed said.

In his practice, Reed said he’s experienced a new trend among those seeking prenups: younger professionals whose attitudes are, “I’m not into this whole ‘till death do us part’ crap.”

These type of prenups include entrepreneurs or young professionals who are entering their first marriage and are doing so on a strictly trial basis, he said. They often each have high net-worth or the expectation of wealth that they wish to protect.

But prenups also can serve those whose estates aren’t upwards of seven figures.

Attorneys Tara Rabiola and Jaimie Cairns of Ruppert & Schaefer P.C. in Indianapolis took some pointers from the discussion. They said their practice typically includes writing prenups for clients with estates that usually involve a principal homestead and more modest assets.

“We do a lot of agreements for second marriages,” Rabiola said.

But Cairns said the agreements can be useful in many situations. She said a recent prenup that she worked on involved a couple who was getting remarried.

In that instance, the spouse with greater assets had to come to the table with assurances in writing that were sufficient to persuade the other that the arrangement would be worthwhile, at least financially.

“I call it a reverse prenup,” Cairns said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • disabled
    I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT