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

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT