In this case, Julie, the wife, argued the prenup was unenforceable for several reasons, but for purposes of this case summary, we’re going to discuss the following two reasons:

– She argues she had no independent counsel representing her during the prenuptial agreement process.

– She claims the disparity in separate estates raises concerns about fundamental fairness.

While the court acknowledged that Julie’s estate was smaller than Ray’s, the court emphasized that Julie willingly negotiated and signed the agreement, and even if it turned out to be a bad deal for her, the court wouldn’t interfere.

The court stressed that prenuptial agreements are enforceable contracts in Mississippi as long as they are executed fairly with full disclosure. In this case, both Julie and Ray signed a valid agreement. Even though Ray’s assets increased significantly over time, the court maintained that the purpose of the prenuptial agreement was to protect premarital and inherited assets, which it successfully did.

In addition, the court noted that having a lawyer is not required to fairly execute a prenuptial agreement in Mississippi. In addition, the court further noted that Julie wanted the prenuptial agreement, understood the agreement, and chose not to seek independent counsel on her own accord.

Essentially, the court’s stance was that contracts involve risks, and the fact that one party benefited more from the agreement over time doesn’t invalidate its original intent and purpose. And the absence of a lawyer for a prenup will not invalidate it (without more).

Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003)

Let’s talk about a recent prenup case stemming from 2023, where a Mississippi Court of Appeals heard a case where a husband waived his right to inherit from his wife’s estate in a prenup. Then, after she died, he asked the court to throw out the prenup because it was one-sided (so he could inherit from her estate).

Eight days before their wedding, Sarah (wife) and Charles (husband) signed a prenuptial agreement. The agreement stated that any property they owned, whether acquired before or after the marriage, would remain their separate property. They each had the right to control and dispose of their own property without any claims from the other spouse. They also waived any rights to inherit from each other’s estates if either person died. At the time of signing, they both disclosed their finances, and Sarah had much more money than Charles.

Sarah’s will primarily left her home and adjoining property to her sister Bonnie. If Bonnie passed away before Sarah, the property would be equally divided between Sarah’s nephew and niece. The will also requested that if Charles survived Sarah, he be allowed to live in the home as long as he wishes and that it is agreeable to the heirs. Sarah’s remaining estate was left to an irrevocable trust managed by her nephew-in-law for the benefit of her sister, nephew, niece, and their descendants.

Charles argued that the prenup was unconscionable (egregiously one-sided), so it should be thrown out. He said it was “unconscionable” because he “received nothing in exchange for waiving his statutory right to renounce” his wife, Sarah’s will.

The court disagreed with Charles and found that the prenup was NOT unconscionable (i.e., it was not overly one-sided). The court explained that the prenup was equally binding on both Sarah and Charles (both people waived their rights to each other’s estates), even though their assets were unequal. (Sarah had more money). The court also stated that an agreement is not automatically unconscionable just because it maintains the existing wealth disparity between the couple.

Just because there is a great wealth disparity between a couple, and both parties waive their rights away to the other’s stuff, the person with less money can’t later say it’s unfair. In other words, “buyer’s remorse” won’t work here!

Est. of Bell v. Est. of Bell, 372 So. 3d 1008 (Miss. Ct. App.)