Luck v. Luck, 85-CA-1515-MR
| Decision Date | 06 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-CA-1515-MR,85-CA-1515-MR |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Dorothy LUCK, Administratrix of the Estate of Eugene Northington Luck, Appellant, v. Eugene N. LUCK, III and Mrs. Dorothy Luck, Individually, Appellees. and Dorothy LUCK, Individually, Cross-Appellant, v. Eugene N. LUCK, III, Cross-Appellee. |
Kenneth E. Dillingham, Elkton, for appellant.
C.H. Gill, Jr., Elkton, G.S. Milam, Russellville, Milburn Keith, Hopkinsville, for appellees.
Before COOPER, DUNN and MCDONALD, JJ.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment in which the trial court ruled that an antenuptial agreement entered into between the appellee, Dorothy Luck, and the decedent, Eugene Northington Luck, was valid and enforceable. On appeal, the principal issue is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in so ruling. Reviewing the record below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
The relevant facts to this action are as follows: In September of 1963, the decedent, Eugene N. Luck, and the appellee, Dorothy Luck (nee Dorothy Hogan) were married. Prior to the time of their marriage, both parties had been previously married and had children by such marriages. And, prior to the time of their marriage, the appellee had worked as an employee of the decedent at a Western Auto store owned by him on leased premises.
On the date of their marriage, the parties entered into an agreement styled "Contract and Agreement" which purported to be a type of antenuptial agreement. The first paragraph of this agreement acknowledged that it was intended to be a temporary agreement until a permanent marriage contract could be drafted:
We, the undersigned, Mrs. Dorothy Hogan, a widow, of Trenton, Kentucky, and Eugene N. Luck, a widower, of Elkton Kentucky, contemplating marriage on this day and at the moment being unable to have the services of our Attorney whom we have contacted relative to a marriage contract, and which services of the said Attorney cannot be had for this purpose for several days yet to come, enter into this Contract and Agreement until the said permanent marriage contract can be drafted by our Attorney, Mr. Boone, and signed by each of us.
Additionally, the document stated that its purpose was to protect the individual interests and estates of the parties involved, as well as to protect the respective interests of their children should one or both of the parties meet their death before a permanent marriage contract could be drafted. Accordingly, the agreement stated that the parties agreed to waive and relinquish "any and all rights of the other, or our heirs or assigns, to the property or Estate of the other, wheresoever situated." Nevertheless, the last paragraph of the agreement again stated that although the contract would be binding on each of the parties, it was intended to be temporary in nature:
It is agreed and understood that this writing shall be binding upon each of us, our heirs or assigns, until the proposed marriage contract between we two to this instrument is drafted and signed by each of us. And when the same has been drafted and signed by each of us, this writing or contract or agreement shall be null and void.
From the time of the parties' marriage in September of 1963 until the decedent's death in March of 1983, both parties worked as a team in acquiring both real and personal property, as well as in developing numerous business interests. Although the decedent evidently had drafted a will at one point in his life, he died intestate. His son, the co-appellee herein, Eugene N. Luck, III, filed a declaratory judgment action against the appellee, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Eugene Northington Luck, to determine the validity of the agreement, and to determine the status of numerous debts incurred either by the estate or the appellee individually. The trial court subsequently issued findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the validity of the agreement as well as ruling on the various indebtedness incurred by the estate. It is from such judgment that the appellant now appeals.
Initially, the question before this Court is whether the trial court clearly erred in ruling that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. As a general rule, antenuptial agreements, if supported by valid consideration, are valid and enforceable and favored in the law. See Hardesty v. Hardesty, 236 Ky. 809, 34 S.W. 2d 442 (1930). Nevertheless, if any doubt or ambiguity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fs Investments, Inc. v. Asset Guar. Ins. Co.
...5. Compare Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474 (Ky.Ct.App.1998) (an agreement to agree or negotiate is without legal import); Luck v. Luck, 711 S.W.2d 860 (Ky.Ct.App.1986); Walker v. Keith, 382 S.W.2d 198 (Ky.1964); Johnson v. Lowery, 270 S.W.2d 943 (Ky.1954); National Bank of Kentucky v. Louis......
-
Lawson v. Loid, 94-SC-60-DG
...the agreement rests on the party relying on the agreement. Harlin v. Harlin, 261 Ky. 414, 87 S.W.2d 937 (1935). See also Luck v. Luck, Ky.App., 711 S.W.2d 860 (1986); Potter's Executor v. Potter, 234 Ky. 769, 29 S.W.2d 15 (1930); Brown v. Brown, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 484 The question of fraud whi......
-
Amburgey v. Amburgey, 2017-CA-000235-MR
...in mind that Kentucky courts have traditionally treated postnuptial agreements under the same standards as prenuptial agreement, we turn to Luck v. Luck, a case focused primarily on prenuptial agreements but also applicable to postnuptial agreements, for the standard of review. Issues invol......
-
Goshorn v. Wilson
...law” so long as valid consideration was given by both parties and each party fully disclosed its assets to the other. Luck v. Luck, 711 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Ky.App.1986) (citations omitted). While valid consideration is not disputed in this case, Richard contends that Dorothy did not fully disc......