## Facts

- Deborah and Bruce L. Bedrick married in 1977 and executed a postnuptial agreement on December 10, 1977, later modified five times, most recently on May 18, 1989.
- The agreement provided that, upon dissolution, neither party would pay alimony; Deborah would receive a cash settlement set at $75,000 (1989 addendum); she would waive any interest in Bruce’s car wash business; and she would not be liable for his personal or business loans.
- Both parties lacked college degrees and worked in and around the car wash business; Deborah also took additional work to supplement the family’s income, and the couple had a son.
- Deborah filed for dissolution in 2007 seeking alimony and equitable distribution; Bruce sought enforcement of the postnuptial agreement.
- At the time of the dissolution proceedings, the parties were about 57 years old and held combined assets exceeding $900,000.
- The trial court found that the parties’ financial circumstances had changed substantially since 1989 and concluded that enforcing the agreement would produce an unfair and inequitable result; it declined to enforce the agreement and awarded, among other relief, lump-sum alimony of $392,372.

## Issues

1. Whether postnuptial agreements are valid and enforceable in Connecticut.
2. What legal standards govern a court’s determination of enforceability of a postnuptial agreement in a dissolution action.
3. Whether this postnuptial agreement was enforceable at the time of dissolution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment declining to enforce the postnuptial agreement.
- The court held that postnuptial agreements are valid and enforceable in Connecticut and generally are evaluated using contract principles, subject to special judicial scrutiny.
- The court adopted a two-part enforceability test: the agreement must be fair and equitable at execution and not unconscionable at dissolution.
- Applying that standard, the court concluded that the Bedricks’ agreement was unconscionable at the time of dissolution and therefore unenforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Postnuptial agreements are generally consistent with Connecticut public policy and may be enforced in dissolution proceedings.
- Because spouses contract within a confidential marital relationship, postnuptial agreements receive special scrutiny beyond ordinary arm’s-length contract review.
- Fairness at execution requires proof, assessed under the totality of the circumstances, that the agreement was made voluntarily, without undue influence, fraud, coercion, or duress, and with full, fair, and reasonable financial disclosure.
- Even if fair when executed, a postnuptial agreement must not be unconscionable when the marriage is dissolved; unconscionability is evaluated in light of the circumstances at dissolution, including duration of the marriage and substantial changes in the parties’ financial conditions.
- A court may decline enforcement when applying the agreement at dissolution would work an injustice and produce an inequitable distribution of marital resources.

## Conclusion

Connecticut recognizes postnuptial agreements but requires courts to assess both fairness at execution and unconscionability at dissolution; because changed circumstances made the Bedricks’ fixed $75,000 settlement and alimony waiver unjust at dissolution, the agreement was unenforceable and the trial court’s equitable financial orders were affirmed.


Bedrick v. Bedrick, 300 Conn. 691, 17 A.3d 17 (Conn. 2011)