In Bassler v. Bassler, the Vermont Supreme Court refused to enforce a prenup because it denied the wife any portion of the husband’s property, and she was receiving public assistance at the time of the divorce.

Linda and her daughter moved in with George on his mother Dolores’s estate in 1983. Linda and George eventually got pregnant, and George agreed to marry her but only if she signed a prenup. The prenup heavily favored George and said Linda got nothing. After separating, Linda and her two kids went on public assistance while George remained on the estate. Linda filed for divorce, and George asked the court to enforce the prenup, which basically said Linda gets nothing.

The result? The court ruled that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable because it left Linda reliant on public assistance, a situation that could have been avoided if the agreement was not in place.

This court also laid out the foundation for what makes a prenup enforceable in Vermont. It said that the enforceability of a prenup is governed by consideration of whether:

• Each spouse has made fair and reasonable disclosure to the other of his or her financial status
• Each spouse has entered into the agreement voluntarily and freely
• The substantive provisions of the agreement dividing the property upon divorce are fair to each spouse.

The court also noted that Vermont public policy will not allow the enforcement of a prenup that is unconscionable (i.e., overly one-sided) at the time it is executed.

Additionally, where, at the time of the divorce, a prenup leaves one spouse a public charge or close to it, the agreement may be unenforceable as against public policy.

Bassler v. Bassler, 593 A.2d 82 (1991).

The Vermont Supreme Court, in 2023, decided an important prenuptial agreement case. The court said that if a couple acts against the terms of their prenup, it can be rescinded based on their actions without another written contract in place. The court held that the parties’ actions in this specific case were clear in that they intended to cancel the agreement.

In the case, the 1994 prenup stated that:

• Each spouse would keep both pre-marital and marital assets separate,
• If they acquired jointly held assets, they would divide them based on their respective contributions.
• They would pay living expenses in proportion to their income and separately pay their individual debts;
• They would file separate tax returns or, if filing jointly, allocate tax funds and liabilities according to their respective incomes.
• The wife is to be compensated for any work she does for the business entirely through wages.

The parties did not follow any of these provisions. By the time of their divorce, the assets listed in the prenup no longer existed. Instead of maintaining separate property as the prenup dictated, they had consolidated their major nonretirement assets, excluding the marital home and the LLC, into a single investment account held in the husband’s name. This account, however, contained funds from both parties, including the wife’s salary and contributions to the business, as well as proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned motorhome.

Rock v. Rock, 308 A.3d 492 (2023).