Ken and Carol (who were both on their second marriages) signed their prenup 2 days before the wedding. The prenup stated that even though the couple was combining their separate property, they intended for each person’s separate property to legally remain their own, with each having a 50% share in it. If they divorced, the agreement outlined a way to divide the property, involving an appraiser and each person taking turns choosing items until the value of their shares was roughly equal.

Carol argued the prenup was invalid because she didn’t understand it and she signed it under undue influence because the husband refused to get married without a prenup. The court disagreed with Carol. The court explained that the prenup should be valid because of the following reasons:

– It was not undue influence for the husband to refuse marriage without a prenup. He actually insisted she seek out independent counsel (but she still didn’t hire an attorney).

– Carol participated in negotiating the prenup herself and made suggested edits to the contract (clearly she understood it if she was making changes to it).

– A contract can’t just be avoided simply because one claims they don’t understand it.

Bottom line? Idaho courts didn’t believe refusing to get married without a prenup was undue influence in this situation. In addition, courts in Idaho won’t let you out of a prenup just because you claim you don’t understand what you signed.

A more recent case stemming from 2020 (what a year!) discusses what happens when a couple argues over the clauses in their prenup. Husband was a chiropractor and wife was a trust fund baby. This Idaho couple in particular were arguing over whether a clause which stated:

• The wife must take out a 30-year term life insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000.
• She must do so within 30 days of the signing of the prenup.
• The policy must name the husband as the SOLE beneficiary.
• The wife must keep the policy in place after the marriage ends.

Eventually, the wife filed for divorce and sought to get this provision of the prenup thrown out…However, she was unsuccessful. She argued that her (now) ex-husband doesn’t have an interest in her life, in fact, he has an interest in her death. However, the Idaho court disagreed with this argument and highlighted the existence of the slayer statute in Idaho, which disincentivizes murder (yikes!). Additionally, the court noted that the wife had legal representation who explained the implications of the agreement before she signed it.

Bottom line? Yes, you can include a clause in your prenup that requires you to maintain a life insurance policy for your partner, even if you get a divorce. Be careful with this one, folks!

Husband and Wife married in 1991 in California, with the Husband, a semi-retired multi-millionaire, insisting on a prenuptial agreement to protect his assets. They selected California as their choice of law for the prenup.

Eventually, they moved to Utah, where the Husband invested $12.8 million to develop the Sorrel River Ranch Resort and earned $1.5 million from another venture. They lived a luxurious lifestyle for several years. Then, in 2005, the Husband filed for divorce.

The Wife argued for community property rights (California law) so she could get 50% of his business earnings, not just his salary. She believed the term “earnings” in the prenup should encompass anything received as an equivalent for services. The prenup stated that any earnings should be split 50/50, which is why she was arguing for this term to have a broader scope. The court ultimately found the Wife’s interpretation of “earnings” conflicted with the entirety of the prenup and affirmed the agreement’s intent to protect the Husband’s assets.

In other words? The prenup was analyzed as a whole, and the court looked at the general intent of the contract (i.e., the husband insisting on the prenup to protect his assets). The court noted that Utah law construes prenups “as a whole in order to harmonize its various provisions” and to ensure that the terms are “interpreted in light of the remaining provisions of the prenup.”