The divorce rate among couples who fight over money once a month is 30% higher than among couples without this problem. Moreover, couples who fight over money once a week are over twice as likely to get a divorce.
Illinois premarital agreements completely remove money from the equation. In addition to securing separate property and other items commonly associated with these contacts, premarital agreements can cover areas like a husband using funds from his paycheck (marital property) to make payments on prior student loans (a separate debt).
Chicago prenuptial agreements can also cover nonfinancial matters, such as inheritance and succession questions. So, these pacts are ideal for people who are on their second marriages and have a family-owned business. Many people combine these agreements with wills and other executory documents, so their wishes are even more concrete.
Breaking Premarital Agreements in Chicago
Family law judges almost always uphold property and other agreements between the parties, so spouses or former spouses who wish to challenge these pacts face an uphill climb. To overturn a premarital agreement in Illinois, one must either show involuntariness or unconscionability.
Long ago, in Kaplan v. Kaplan (1962), the Illinois Supreme Court defined “duress” as “a condition where one is induced by a wrongful act or threat of another to make a contract under circumstances which deprive [the individual] of the exercise of free will.” So, even if a spouse feels pressure to sign, the agreement is probably not invalid.
To show that a premarital agreement was involuntary in a legal sense, the challenging spouse must do more. Evidence of duress includes:
- Lack of separate counsel,
- Timing of the agreement (e.g. a bride who springs the prenup on the groom the day before the wedding when all travel arrangements had been made and paid for), and
- Limited English proficiency or other clear lack of understanding.
A sign-or-else ultimatum is not duress. Bribery (e.g. “sign this or I will tell everyone about your secret”) is not duress in Illinois either.
Furthermore, agreements that are unconscionable are invalid. There is a big difference between “uneven” and “unconscionable.” In the latter instance, the agreement is so blatantly one-sided that it makes people gasp. A no-alimony clause, especially if one spouse is economically dependent on the other spouse, is unconscionable in many cases.
The Uniform Marital and Premarital Agreement Act, which Illinois lawmakers adopted in 1990, adds another requirement. The agreement must not be unconscionable when it was made. Some baseball fans may remember Frank and Jamie McCourt, the husband and wife team who owned the Los Angeles Dodgers in the early 2000s. In 2011, as the couple was divorcing, Jamie McCourt signed a property agreement in which she gave up her half of the team in exchange for about $200 million in cash and property. At the time, the agreement seemed like a steal, because the Dodgers were in bankruptcy and the team was basically worthless.
A few years later, Mr. McCourt sold the Dodgers for $2 billion. His ex-wife went to court, claiming she was entitled to her half. But the judge disagreed because the agreement she signed was not unconscionable when it was made.
Connect with Experienced Lawyers
It is difficult, but not impossible, to challenge a premarital agreement. For a confidential consultation with an experienced family law attorney in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.
(image courtesy of Wesley Tingey)