## Facts

- Cynthia Lee Bratton and Michael Wayne Bratton married in 1982 while Dr. Bratton was in medical school and Ms. Bratton was employed as a research technician.
- In 1983, Dr. Bratton wrote a letter promising that if he caused a divorce, he would give Ms. Bratton 50% of his present belongings and 50% of his net future earnings.
- Later in 1983, the spouses signed a written postnuptial “property settlement agreement” addressing property division and spousal support in the event of a future divorce.
- The agreement provided that if Dr. Bratton was guilty of statutory grounds for divorce and Ms. Bratton filed for divorce, marital property would be divided equally and Dr. Bratton would pay Ms. Bratton one-half of his net income (after taxes).
- The parties disputed whether the agreement was supported by new consideration, with Ms. Bratton asserting it related to her sacrifices for Dr. Bratton’s professional training and family responsibilities.
- After about 18 years of marriage, Ms. Bratton filed for divorce in 2000; Dr. Bratton challenged the agreement’s enforceability and the trial court’s award of long-term alimony.

## Issues

1. Whether postnuptial agreements made during an ongoing marriage are per se contrary to public policy under Tennessee law.
2. If not per se invalid, whether the parties’ 1983 postnuptial agreement was enforceable, including whether it was supported by adequate consideration.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding alimony in futuro instead of rehabilitative alimony.

## Decision

- The court held postnuptial agreements are not per se void as against public policy if supported by consideration, entered into knowingly, and free of fraud, coercion, or duress.
- The court held the Brattons’ postnuptial agreement was invalid and unenforceable for lack of adequate consideration.
- The court held the agreement was non-severable; therefore, the failure of consideration defeated the agreement as a whole.
- The court affirmed the award of alimony in futuro, finding no abuse of discretion under the statutory factors.
- The court affirmed the intermediate appellate judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Postnuptial agreements are enforceable in Tennessee when supported by adequate consideration, knowingly entered into, and not procured by fraud, coercion, or duress.
- Consideration requires a bargained-for benefit to the promisor or detriment/obligation to the promisee; past conduct or preexisting marital duties generally do not supply new consideration for a later contract.
- A promise merely to continue an existing marriage, without additional bargained-for obligations, is insufficient consideration for an agreement that materially alters spouses’ legal rights.
- Severability depends on the parties’ intent and the interdependence of provisions; a comprehensive divorce-allocation scheme may be treated as non-severable.
- In spousal support, the key considerations include the disadvantaged spouse’s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay; appellate review of alimony is for abuse of discretion based on statutory factors.

## Conclusion

Postnuptial agreements are not automatically invalid in Tennessee, but they must be supported by adequate, bargained-for consideration and entered into knowingly and voluntarily without improper pressure. Because the spouses’ 1983 agreement lacked adequate consideration and was treated as a single, non-severable scheme, it was unenforceable, and the trial court’s award of alimony in futuro was affirmed.


Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2004)