Mays v. Mullins

• Decision Date: 14 March 2018
• Docket Number: No. CV–17–726,CV–17–726
• Citation: 547 S.W.3d 474
• Parties: Kathy Frazier MAYS, Appellant v. Jacqueline MULLINS, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

547 S.W.3d 474

Kathy Frazier MAYS, Appellant

v.Jacqueline MULLINS, Appellee

No. CV–17–726

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered March 14, 2018

Rehearing Denied April 18, 2018

Ed Daniel IV, P.A., Little Rock, by: Ed Daniel IV, for appellant.

Nixon, Light & Buzbee, PLLC, Little Rock, by: John B. Buzbee, for appellee.

N.MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

AppellantKathy Frazier Mays appeals the May 2017 order entered by the Pulaski County Circuit Court, probate division, finding that she failed to establish the invalidity of an antenuptial agreement.The parties to the 1995 antenuptial agreement were Kathy and Sedrick Mays.Sedrick died in June 2015.Kathy argues on appeal that the trial court's finding that the antenuptial agreement was enforceable against her is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.We disagree with her argument and affirm.

The appellate court reviews probate proceedings de novo but will not reverse the decision of the probate court unless it is clearly erroneous.Seymour v. Biehslich , 371 Ark. 359, 266 S.W.3d 722(2007).A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court is left on the entire evidence with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.Id.We must defer to the superior position of the lower court sitting in a probate matter to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.Patton v. Fulmer , 2016 Ark. App. 260, 492 S.W.3d 512.To the extent that the appellate court reviews questions of law, that review is de novo.Estate of Taylor v. MCSA, LLC , 2013 Ark. 429, 430 S.W.3d 120;Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health Sys., Inc. , 2012 Ark. 14, 386 S.W.3d 385.

Arkansas law has long recognized the validity of premarital¹ agreements.See , e.g. , Oliphant v. Oliphant , 177 Ark. 613, 7 S.W.2d 783(1928).In Arkansas, a premarital agreement is valid if it was freely entered into and is free from fraud and not inequitable.Arnold v. Arnold , 261 Ark. 734, 553 S.W.2d 251(1977);Gooch v. Gooch , 10 Ark. App. 432, 664 S.W.2d 900(1984).Parties contemplating marriage may, by agreement, fix the rights of each in the property of the other differently than established by law.Banks v. Evans , 347 Ark. 383, 64 S.W.3d 746(2002);Hughes v. Hughes , 251 Ark. 63, 471 S.W.2d 355(1971).In determining the fairness or equity of the agreement, the court may consider the parties' respective stations in life, their experiences and educations, and their knowledge of financial and legal matters.Banks , supra;Gooch , supra.

At issue here is the enforcement of a premarital agreement, governed by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9–11–406, which provides in relevant part as follows:

(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:

(1) that party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or

(2) the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:

(i) was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(ii) did not voluntarily and expressly waive after consulting with legal counsel, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and

(iii) did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.

....

(c) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.

This law places the burden on the party contesting the agreement to prove its invalidity.Branch v. Branch , 2016 Ark. App. 613, 508 S.W.3d 911.To prevail under this statute, it was Kathy's burden to establish either that she did not execute the agreement voluntarily, or that all of the following existed: (1) that the agreement was unconscionable; (2) that, before the execution of the premarital agreement, she was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of Sedrick's property or his financial obligations; (3) that, before the execution of the premarital agreement, she did not voluntarily and expressly waive, after consulting with legal counsel, in writing, any right to disclosure of Sedrick's property or financial obligations beyond the disclosures provided; and (4) that, before the execution of the premarital agreement, she did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of Sedrick's property or financial obligations.Id. at 3–4, 508 S.W.3d at 914–15.

With these principles in mind, we examine the facts of this case.Sedrick Mays was the owner and operator of Kitchen Express, a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas.Sedrick graduated from high school, but he did not go to college.In 1993, Kathy's aunt introduced her to Sedrick at the restaurant.Kathy had gone to college, and she was trained to be a registered nurse.The two began dating in December 1993.

Kathy moved back to her hometown in Camden, Arkansas, to live with her mother, but she and Sedrick alternated driving between Camden and Little Rock to visit one other.²Kathy would stay with Sedrick at his house on West 31st Street in Little Rock, near the restaurant.The two eventually planned to marry, setting the date for December 30, 1995.On December 27, 1995, the two applied for a marriage license in Pulaski County.Sedrick was 34 years old, and Kathy was 31 years old; they signed as "Sedrick Louis Mays" and "Kathy G. Frazier," and their signatures were verified by the county clerk.

Willie Bradley would later testify that he came to the restaurant on December 29, 1995, to visit his cousin "Sed."The restaurant was open.Willie stated that this was the first time he met Kathy and that Sedrick introduced her as his fiancée.Willie was there when Sedrick signed the document in front of a notary, Michael Craig.Willie said that he and another witness, Angela Peterson, whom he did not know, signed the document as well.He said that Kathy did not say anything, nor did he hear any conversation between Sedrick and Kathy about the document, but he did not witness Kathy behave in any way to make him think she was not voluntarily signing the document.Willie witnessed the notary place the physically imprinted, raised notary seal on the document.Willie stated that the date on the document, December 29, 1995, was already written on the document and that it was the date that everyone signed.Willie admittedly did not read through the document; the signature pages were open for him.In response to the trial court's question, Willie stated that "[t]he only document that I saw was the part that we signed.It was just two pages.As far as I can remember, there were just two pages.The two pages we signed.There probably were some more there, but I didn't really pay enough attention to it."On cross-examination, Willie agreed that Sedrick had loaned him money in June 1995, but Willie said that he paid Sedrick back in a week's time and that he was not asked to sign the document in exchange for forgiveness of debt.Willie did not go to Kathy and Sedrick's wedding.

The "Antenuptial Agreement" was eleven pages long, and in it, Sedrick and Kathy agreed that they intended, in anticipation of marriage, to fix and determine their rights and claims to the estate and property of the other person by reason of marriage.The agreement recited that both of them had "disclosed to the other the nature and extent of their various property interests and all of their sources of income, both earned and unearned"; that each of them had "fully acquainted" the other of his or her "means and resources" and had "informed" the other "in detail" of his or her "net worth"; that they accepted the agreement's provisions "in lieu of all rights which they would otherwise acquire by reason of the marriage in the property or estate of each other"; that "each party has been fully informed of the financial condition of the other"; that both of them "clearly understand and consent to all provisions hereof" and "had the benefit of the advice of an attorney and counselor of their own selection" and entered the agreement "freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge."The agreement recited that this document contained "the entire understanding of the parties."

The agreement recited that each party would retain his or her own premarital property, including "real, personal or mixed" property, free from any and all rights or claims of the other party, including through "inheritance."The agreement set forth that the "only exception to this Agreement" would be the real property located at 11025 Dogwood Cove in Little Rock, which they had "purchased jointly" in November 1995, before their marriage.The agreement specified particular premarital assets located in Little Rock belonging to Sedrick, including 2805 Cross Street; 4624 West 31st Street; portions of four particular lots in Riffel and Holder's Second Edition; "Kitchen Express" located at 4600 Asher Avenue; the "Bread Store"at 4612 Asher Avenue; the "House"at 4617 West 31st Street; and a "vacant lot"at 4624 Asher Avenue in the Oakhurst Addition.Kathy specifically agreed that Sedrick would have unfettered control and ownership of his premarital property "including all profits and increases in value from said real property."Each party waived and released any interest that might exist in those assets "including any interest, improvements, increases in value and/or profits derived from any real property during the course of the marriage."Each party agreed to "abolish spousal support obligations."The agreement was to become effective at the time of their marriage.

The last three of the eleven pages contained the signature pages.The ninth page contained the notary's two acknowledgments that the parties had executed the document, one for Kathy and one for Sedrick.Pages ten and eleven contained the signatures of "Sedrick Mays" and "Kathy Frazier" as well...