James and Donna both agreed to sign a prenuptial agreement, drafted by James’ lawyer, stating neither would inherit the other’s property if one of them passed away. Donna signed the agreement without consulting a lawyer.

Sadly, James passed away in 2005, and Donna tried to take charge of his estate. James’ family stepped in and asked the court to uphold the prenuptial agreement, which stated Donna wouldn’t receive any of James’ belongings. Donna argued the prenup was invalid because she did not receive proper financial disclosure (which is a requirement in Maine).

However, the court disagreed with Donna. In fact, the court found plenty of evidence suggesting she did know, or at least had the opportunity to know, about his finances. Having adequate knowledge of a spouse’s finances suffices the financial disclosure requirement of a prenup under Title 19-A, § 608.

The moral of the story? In Maine, financial disclosure can be satisfied by having adequate knowledge of your spouse’s finances without having provided actual financial disclosure in the prenup. HOWEVER–We always recommend following the formal financial disclosure process, which means attaching a financial schedule to the end of your prenuptial agreement with an accurate list of both spouses’ assets, debts, accounts, income, and inheritances.

(In re Est. of Martin,938 A.2d 812 (2008))

One of the main issues in question for this case was whether the agreement was unconscionable. The ex-wife argued the prenup should be thrown out because it was too one-sided and there was too large of a financial disparity between the couple to be fair (i.e., she argued it was invalid and unconscionable).

The prenup had terms included the following terms:

– Neither spouse could claim the other’s property in case of death or divorce.

– Wife would receive temporary spousal support.

– They would split their shared belongings equally.

– Wife could choose a car but would be responsible for any associated debt.

The court disagreed with the wife. The court listed the following reasons to support why the agreement was NOT unconscionable:

– Both parties were financially independent and self-sufficient at the time of signing.

– Both parties wanted to enter into the agreement.

– The ex-wife had ample time (six weeks) to review the agreement before signing.

– The ex-wife requested changes to the agreement, and those changes were made.

– The ex-wife consulted with independent legal counsel.

– The final terms of the agreement were not excessively one-sided or unfair.

The bottom line? It takes a lot more than just financial disparity between a couple to get a prenup thrown out. In fact, the court noted that to be substantively unconscionable, a prenup must shock the conscience of the court. Here, that was not the case.