Murray v. Murray, S16A0857
Decision Date | 03 October 2016 |
Docket Number | S16A0857 |
Citation | 791 S.E.2d 816,299 Ga. 703 |
Parties | Murray v. Murray. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Howard C. Kaufold, Jr., Howard C. Kaufold, Jr. LLC, P.O. Box 1840, Vidalia, Georgia 30475, for Appellant.
Robert Bunnell Smith, Smith & Phelps, P.O. Box 285, Jesup, Georgia 31598–0285, Earl M. McRae, Jr., Law Offices of Earl Mcrae, P.C., 3909 Bowens Mill Road, Douglas, Georgia 31533, for Appellee.
We granted this interlocutory appeal to address whether the trial court erred when it denied enforcement of the parties' post-nuptial agreement. Based on the record before this Court, the trial court properly found that the post-nuptial agreement was unenforceable and we affirm the judgment below.
In October 2014, Brenda Kay Murray (Wife) initiated divorce proceedings against Gary Wilbur Murray (Husband). The parties, who had been married for approximately 34 years, began discussing the prospect of divorce several months prior. Though Husband indicated his desire to divorce, Wife wanted to save the marriage and, to that end, wrote Husband a letter of apology renouncing her rights in the marital estate. Wife claims that she wrote this letter at Husband's behest and that its terms reflected what Husband wanted it to say. Husband subsequently engaged counsel to draw up a formal post-nuptial agreement (the “Agreement”), providing for the disposition of the couple's marital property upon dissolution of the marriage by divorce or death, which was favorable toward Husband. The parties signed the Agreement on June 5, 2014.
Several months after the Agreement was executed, and following unfruitful attempts at marriage counseling, Wife filed for divorce in October 2014. Husband moved to enforce the Agreement, and Wife objected, claiming the Agreement was the product of fraud. Specifically, Wife claimed that Husband had induced her to sign the Agreement with the promise that he would tear it up as soon as she signed it, making her believe her execution of the Agreement was merely a symbolic gesture of love and devotion that would have no practical effect. Husband, on the other hand, contended that he merely promised to destroy the Agreement if and when he “was comfortable they were in love again.”
Following a hearing, the trial court denied Husband's motion, finding the Agreement to be unenforceable. In its order denying Husband's motion, the trial court credited Wife's testimony in its entirety and concluded in relevant part:
In deciding whether to enforce a post-nuptial agreement, the trial court “essentially sits in equity and has discretion to ‘approve the agreement in whole or in part, or refuse to approve it as a whole.’ ” (Citation omitted). Alexander v. Alexander, 279 Ga. 116, 117–118, 610 S.E.2d 48 (2005). Three factors to consider in deciding the validity of a post-nuptial agreement are: Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635, 641, 292 S.E.2d 662 (1982). We evaluate a trial court's ruling on such matters pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard. See Lawrence v. Lawrence, 286 Ga. 309, 309–310, 687 S.E.2d 421 (2009). Under this standard, “we review the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gibson v. Gibson, S17F0593
...that Husband's failure to tell her about the transfers made those transfers fraudulent as a matter of law. See Murray v. Murray , 299 Ga. 703, 705, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016) ; Beller v. Tilbrook , 275 Ga. 762, 762-763 (3), 571 S.E.2d 735 (2002) ; Adair v. Adair , 220 Ga. 852, 855 (1), 142 S.E.2......
-
Stuttering Found., Inc. v. Glynn Cnty.
...461 (1984). And the trial court's application of law to the facts is subject to de novo appellate review. See Murray v. Murray , 299 Ga. 703, 705, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016). Although the trial court's order in this case granting the County's motion to dismiss did not expressly apply the "substa......
-
Welcker v. Ga. Bd. of Exam'rs of Psychologists, A16A1970
...erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Murray v. Murray , 299 Ga. 703, 705, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016). 2. Welcker first asserts that the trial court erred in failing to review the denial of her license in addition to the......
- Garibay v. Terry
-
§ 4.03 Modern Enforceability: Generally Accepted Equitable Limits
...v. Petrakis, 39 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1226 (N.Y. App. 2013).[27] Baer v. Cabiran-Baer, 44 So.3d 840 (La. App. 2010).[28] Murray v. Murray, 299 Ga. 703, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016).[29] Carter v. Fairchild-Carter, 187 A.D.3d 1360, 133 N.Y.S.3d 316 (2020).[30] Moore v. Moore, 383 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.......
-
Domestic Relations
...Georgia Law, 68 MERCER L. REV. 107 (2016).2. See generally Vakharwala v. Vakharwala, 301 Ga. 251, 799 S.E.2d 797 (2017); Murray v. Murray, 299 Ga. 703, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016).3. 301 Ga. 251, 799 S.E.2d 797 (2017).4. Id. at 251-52, 799 S.E.2d at 798-99. 5. Id. at 251-52, 799 S.E.2d at 798.6. ......