## Facts

- A physician husband and a teacher wife (with three children from a prior marriage) began dating in 1991.
- After the wife became pregnant in 1992, the husband stated he would not marry unless she signed an antenuptial agreement.
- The husband’s attorney drafted the agreement; the wife retained independent counsel who advised her not to sign, but she executed it anyway.
- The parties discussed the agreement with the husband’s attorney and then signed it at a bank before a notary, with the wife acknowledging it was her free act and deed.
- Disclosures at execution reflected a large disparity: the husband held approximately $986,000 in premarital assets and earned about $6,400 per week; the wife held about $100,000 in premarital assets and earned about $1,675 per week.
- The agreement generally preserved each party’s premarital property (and appreciation) as separate, waived alimony claims, and allowed the wife an interest in marital property acquired during the marriage.
- The parties married shortly after signing, had two children together, and were married about ten years; by mutual decision, the wife became a stay-at-home parent while the husband grew his medical practice.
- During the marriage, they acquired a marital residence and the husband acquired a medical office building used in his practice.
- The husband filed for divorce in 2001 and sought enforcement of the antenuptial agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the antenuptial agreement was enforceable as fair and reasonable at execution, free from coercion or duress, and not unconscionable at enforcement.
2. Whether the trial court properly excluded the medical office building (acquired during the marriage) from the marital estate, and whether it adequately explained the basis for that treatment under equitable distribution principles.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed enforcement of the antenuptial agreement.
- The court held the record supported findings that the agreement was fair and reasonable when executed, the wife had an opportunity for independent legal advice and review, and execution was not the product of coercion or duress.
- The court held the agreement was not unconscionable at the time of enforcement in light of the overall outcome, including the wife’s retained interests and support for the children.
- The court vacated the portions of the divorce judgments permitting the husband to retain sole title to the medical office building.
- The case was remanded for the trial judge to articulate the rationale for the office-building disposition and enter a new or revised order regarding that property.

## Legal Principles

- An antenuptial agreement is enforceable when it is fair and reasonable at the time of execution and not unconscionable at the time of enforcement.
- Courts consider procedural fairness indicators, including meaningful financial disclosure and the opportunity to obtain independent counsel, in evaluating enforceability.
- Conditioning marriage on signing a prenuptial agreement does not, by itself, establish legal duress where the other party had time for review and access to independent advice.
- Even where a prenuptial agreement is upheld, a divorce judgment must include sufficiently clear findings explaining the classification and distribution of particular assets, especially property acquired during the marriage and potentially subject to equitable division.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the parties’ antenuptial agreement because it was procedurally and substantively fair at execution and not unconscionable at enforcement, but it vacated and remanded the order awarding the husband sole title to a medical office building acquired during the marriage due to inadequate explanation for excluding or treating that asset outside equitable distribution.


Biliouris v. Biliouris, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 149, 852 N.E.2d 687 (2006)