We know that financial disclosure is super important to enforcing an Oklahoma prenup, but what exactly is required for financial disclosure to be considered sufficient? The Supreme Court of Oklahoma dealt with this issue in 2004. Here’s what happened:

A husband and wife got married and signed a prenup before getting married (with the help of lawyers). The husband had a significant amount of trust assets, and the wife was a college-educated businesswoman. The prenup kept everything separate but provided the wife with a lump sum payment depending on the length of the marriage. She would get $250k if the divorce occurred between 5-10 years of marriage and $500k if the marriage lasted longer.

During the divorce, the wife argued the prenup wasn’t enforceable for several reasons, one of them being that there was misrepresentation due to a lack of sufficient financial disclosure. She argued that his $7 million trust fund was not listed; however, he had actually listed the trust but in the amount of $25 million. Because this was actually an overestimate, the court said it was not considered misrepresentation.

The court also applied the Burgess test to determine if the agreement was enforceable. Basically, that test asks if:

• there was a fair provision for the wife,
• if not, was there was full, fair, and frank financial disclosure, and
• if neither of the first two, did the wife at least have adequate knowledge of the assets?

The court said “yes” to all three. She was provided with a lump sum provision, which the court deemed fair. Plus, he provided full, fair, and frank financial disclosure.

A couple in their 50s decided to tie the knot (the husband on his third marriage and the wife on her second). Both had adult children from previous marriages. They decided to sign a prenup which stated that neither party may have the right to the other’s property in divorce or death.

Eventually, after the husband’s death, the wife sought to get the prenup thrown out so she could receive a portion of his estate.

The court upheld the prenuptial agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Burgess, despite its lack of specific “fair” provisions for her and the disparity in their wealth (he had more than her). The court explained:

– Voluntarily Entered: The agreement was freely entered into by both parties, who were adults with prior marriages and some level of financial independence. Mrs. Burgess had a generally accurate understanding of Mr. Burgess’s wealth, even if full disclosure wasn’t provided.

– Absence of Fraud or Coercion: There was no evidence of fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching in the creation of the agreement.

– Policy Considerations: The court emphasized the importance of upholding prenuptial agreements between competent adults, especially when there is no evidence of unfairness or deception.

The takeaway? Just because you signed an agreement with someone wealthier than you doesn’t mean you can later claim the agreement isn’t fair and get out of it. In addition, the court will analyze your situation based on several factors.

Matter of Burgess’ Est., 646 P.2d 623 (1982)

In this case, the Oklahoma court upheld a prenup even though it specifically found that there was no fair provision for the wife. The prenup made sure each party kept their assets separate. However, the Husband’s property nearly doubled in value, while the wife had very little. The wife sought to throw out the agreement based on duress and lack of proper financial disclosure.

The court still upheld the prenuptial agreement as valid (even though it noted there was no fair provisions for the wife), due to the following reasons:

– Wife’s awareness of Husband’s assets: She had a general understanding of the husband’s financial situation before the marriage.

– No Duress: While the wife claimed she signed the agreement under duress, the evidence showed she had ample time to review it (3 months) and signed it voluntarily.

– Prior Marriages and Understanding: Both parties had been previously married, and the wife was aware of the husband’s concerns about going through another bitter divorce.

Remember, the Oklahoma court utilizes the “Burgess” test which asks first if there was a fair provision for the person wanting the prenup to be thrown out. If not, was their full, fair, and frank financial disclosure? If not, did they at least have adequate knowledge? Here, she did have adequate knowledge, so the test was satisfied and prenup enforced.