Estate of Peterson, In re
| Decision Date | 07 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-706,84-706 |
| Citation | 221 Neb. 792,381 N.W.2d 109 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE OF Eugenia A. PETERSON, Deceased. Carl A. PETERSON, Appellant, v. James E. ABBOTT and LeRoy Abbott II, Copersonal Representatives of the Estate of Eugenia A. Peterson, Deceased, Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Antenuptial Agreements: Contracts: Proof. The burden of proof regarding the validity of an antenuptial contract is on the party asserting its invalidity.
2. Contracts. The law has long been that a person who signs a contract without reading it cannot later relieve himself of its burdens.
3. Antenuptial Agreements: Contracts: Words and Phrases. "Fair disclosure," in the context of an antenuptial agreement, contemplates that each spouse shall be given information of a general and approximate nature concerning the net worth of the other.
4. Decedents' Estates: Antenuptial Agreements: Contracts: Waiver. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-2316 (Reissue 1979) provides that the parties to a valid antenuptial agreement may waive the right to elect a share of both real and personal property of a deceased spouse.
5. Decedents' Estates: Antenuptial Agreements: Contracts: Statutes. The effect of an antenuptial contract in which the parties agree to be bound by present and future laws is to be determined by the statutes in effect at the time of the death of the party to the agreement whose estate is attempting to effectuate the agreement.
Clark G. Nichols of Winner, Nichols, Douglas & Kelly, Scottsbluff, for appellant.
Robert W. Mullin of Van Steenberg, Brower, Chaloupka, Mullin & Holyoke, Scottsbluff, for appellees.
Eugenia A. Peterson died February 5, 1983. A petition for formal probate of her will was filed in the county court for Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska, and the will was admitted to probate on March 22, 1983. Decedent's husband, Carl Peterson, filed a "Petition for Elective Share" in the probate proceedings in that court on August 3, 1983, in which he elected "pursuant to Nebraska Probate Code Section 30-2317 to take one-half of the augmented estate of the decedent." The copersonal representatives of decedent's estate, decedent's two sons from her previous marriage to LeRoy Abbott, filed an answer to the petition for elective share, asserting that an antenuptial agreement executed by Carl and Eugenia barred Carl's claim. Carl replied to the answer, alleging that the antenuptial agreement was void, asserting, inter alia, that there was fraud and overreaching in the execution of the antenuptial agreement and that, in any event, such an agreement applied to real property only and not to personal property.
After a pretrial conference the county court issued a pretrial order bifurcating the trial. The first part of the trial was to determine whether Carl was entitled to an elective share, and if it was so determined, the second part of the trial would be used to determine the amount of the share. In regard to the procedure, at the beginning of the trial the court stated:
[B]asically that [the pretrial order] states that ... it is the estate's right and obligation to go forward first with the evidence to present the existence of a valid antenuptial or prenuptial agreement and, then, the evidence for the Contestant, Mr. Carl Peterson, would be permitted in opposition thereto, and that any rebuttal evidence then would be taken up at that time.
So it would be the opinion of the Court that estoppel or waiver or that type of evidence would not be germane until having heard the evidence Mr. Peterson may present.
At trial the estate, as set out in the court's journal entry, After Carl rested, the estate offered no rebuttal evidence and then moved to dismiss "on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the antenuptial agreement was invalid." The court sustained the motion to dismiss.
Carl Peterson timely appealed to district court. The district court affirmed the county court order dismissing Carl's petition for elective share, "[f]inding no error on the record." Carl timely appeals to this court and assigns 14 errors. The assignments may be grouped into four. First, appellant alleges that the antenuptial agreement was invalid on several grounds, including improper execution and insufficient disclosure of assets and fraud committed by Eugenia in connection with the antenuptial agreement. Second, appellant urges that the county court erred in holding that the burden of proof was on Carl to show the invalidity of the agreement. Third, the county court erred in failing to find that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 30-106 (Reissue 1964) controlled as to the validity and extent of the agreement. Fourth, the county court erred in finding that Carl was estopped from denying the validity of the agreement.
The standard of review by this court is for errors appearing on the record. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1911 (Reissue 1979); In re Estate of Casselman, 219 Neb. 653, 365 N.W.2d 805 (1985); In re Estate of Massie, 218 Neb. 103, 353 N.W.2d 735 (1984). The evidence before the county court shows the following.
When they met, Carl Peterson and Eugenia Abbott were each single. Carl had been divorced and Eugenia's first husband had died. Each had children, all of whom were adults at the time of these proceedings. Eugenia and Carl were married on July 25, 1969, and executed an antenuptial agreement 2 days before their marriage. The agreement had been prepared by Eugenia's lawyers and was brought to Eugenia's house by Paul Hefti, the president of the Guardian State Bank of Alliance, Nebraska. The agreement was signed by both parties, and both acknowledged their signatures before Hefti, who was a notary public. Hefti had died before the date of the proceedings herein. The Guardian State Bank was the executor of the estate of Eugenia's first husband, LeRoy Abbott, and handled the trusts set up in LeRoy Abbott's will.
Although Carl and Eugenia jointly held some property during their marriage, they generally kept their financial matters separate. Based upon the sale of his ranch in 1973, Carl's net worth in 1969 when the antenuptial agreement was signed was approximately $250,000. Eugenia's net worth at that time included approximately $215,868.53 of personal property and an interest in the LeRoy Abbott estate, in which she had a power of appointment over approximately one-half of the adjusted gross estate of approximately $10 million. Inter vivos gifts from Eugenia to Carl during the marriage included a house in Scottsbluff, a condominium in Hawaii, and approximately $200,000 in tax-exempt bonds. Carl was bequeathed $200,000 in cash in Eugenia's will.
Initially, Carl asserts that the county court erred in putting the burden on Carl to prove the invalidity of the antenuptial agreement. We have held that the burden of proof regarding the validity of an antenuptial contract is on the party asserting its invalidity. Moss v. Stueven, 200 Neb. 215, 217, 263 N.W.2d 98 (1978); Strickland v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 181 Neb. 478, 149 N.W.2d 344 (1967); Caprette v. Spieth, 181 Neb. 11, 146 N.W.2d 746 (1966). The county court, therefore, did not err in placing the burden on Carl to show the invalidity of the antenuptial agreement. It was incumbent upon Carl to show the fraud and overreaching that he alleged in claiming that the agreement was invalid.
Insofar as Carl contends that the county court should have accepted as true all of his evidence and all the reasonable inferences from that evidence because his petition was dismissed at the conclusion of his evidence, the posture of this case does not support Carl's conclusion. Carl's premise is that the county court sustained a motion to dismiss his case at the conclusion of his evidence. In reality, the county court heard all the evidence on the issue of the validity of the antenuptial agreement. The court required the estate to go forward initially with the estate's evidence on the existence and execution of a valid antenuptial agreement. Carl then adduced evidence on the question of the validity of the agreement and rested. The estate did not adduce further evidence and moved for dismissal of Carl's claim resting on the invalidity of the agreement--in effect, at the end of this phase of the case. The court treated this as a submission of the case on the point and found in part as follows:
(1) The formalities of the statutes were met in the execution of the antenuptial contract.
(2) Both husband and wife possessed substantial assets at the time of execution of the contract, although the wife's assets were proportionally much larger.
(3) The disclosure by the wife was full, fair and open disclosure in the contract. The Court finds evidence presented by the husband that Exhibit A was not attached at the time of execution to be unconvincing.
(4) The contract does not appear to be unjust or unreasonable on its face, and does include full, fair and open disclosure. Therefore no presumption of fraud arises. The burden of proof does not shift to the estate to prove validity of the contract. The burden of proof remains on the husband to show invalidity of the antenuptial contract.
(5) There is no evidence of fraud or overreaching in this matter.
Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that the evidence fully supports the findings of the county court. Carl's first attack on the agreement is that there was not a full disclosure by Eugenia of her assets at the time of the agreement.
Carl testified that he basically understood the purpose of the antenuptial agreement. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friezo v. Friezo, 17456.
... ... Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666, 670, 389 N.E.2d 385 (1979); Wiley v. Iverson, 295 Mont. 511, 517, 985 P.2d 1176 (1999); In re Estate of Hollett, 150 N.H. 39, 42-43, 834 A.2d 348 (2003); Tiryakian v. Tiryakian, 91 N.C.App. 128, 132, 370 S.E.2d 852 (1988); Fletcher v. Fletcher, ... disclosure was not made will not necessarily be sufficient to set aside an otherwise properly executed agreement."); In re Estate of Peterson, 221 Neb. 792, 798, 381 N.W.2d 109 (1986) ("[f]air disclosure contemplates that each spouse should be given information, of a general and ... ...
-
Sanford v. Sanford
... ... Argued January 11, 2005 ... Decided March 9, 2005 ... 694 N.W.2d 285 Edwin E. Evans, Mark F. Marshall, Mitchell A. Peterson of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellee ... Thomas J. Welk, Lisa Hansen Marso of Boyce, ... 4 Its basis is that the law makes provision for a spouse out of the estate of the other spouse after separation in lieu of the common law obligation to support the spouse had the marriage continued. Guinter v. Guinter, 72 ... ...
-
Watts v. Butte School Dist. No. 5
... ... 5 Because section 79-1283 was in existence at the time the agreement was executed, it became a part of that agreement. In re Estate of Peterson, 221 Neb. 792, 800, 381 N.W.2d 109 (1986). Therefore, under the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "participate" as used in the ... ...
-
Nebraska Life and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Dobias
... ... Anderson v. Peterson, 221 Neb. 149, 375 N.W.2d 901 (1985) ... The stated purpose of the act is to protect resident policyowners and insureds against the ... Estate of Peterson, 221 Neb. 792, 381 N.W.2d 109 (1986). See, also, Haakinson & Beaty Co. v. Inland Ins. Co., 216 Neb. 426, 344 N.W.2d 454 (1984) (every ... ...
-
§ 4.03 Modern Enforceability: Generally Accepted Equitable Limits
...is all that is required). Missouri: Estate of Reinsmidt, 897 S.W.2d 73 (Mo. App. 1995) (enforced agreement). Nebraska: Estate of Peterson, 221 Neb. 792, 381 N.W.2d 109 (1986) (a party must provide information of at least a general and approximate nature concerning net worth). North Dakota: ......
-
What's So Special About Special Proceedings? Making Sense of Nebraska's Final Order Statute
...Krichau, 1 Neb. Ct. App. 398, 501 N.W.2d 722 (1992) (involving an appeal from disallowance of claim). 239. See In re Estate of Peterson, 221 Neb. 792, 381 N.W.2d 109 (1986) (involving an appeal from order disallowing spouse's petition for an elective share on ground that antenuptial agreeme......