## Facts

- Stella Behnen Buettner (wife) and John Alvin Buettner (husband), both previously married with children, signed an antenuptial agreement in contemplation of marriage and married the same day (Dec. 6, 1970).
- The agreement provided that each spouse relinquished rights in the other’s separate property, except as stated in the agreement.
- The agreement also contained reciprocal will-related promises concerning distribution at death.
- For divorce, the agreement provided that, in addition to one-half of the community property, Stella would receive: (1) a specified Las Vegas house and its household goods (subject to an existing trust deed), and (2) $500 per month for five years ($30,000 total), payable regardless of remarriage.
- The agreement listed John’s separate property (later estimated by him at about $400,000) and did not list Stella’s separate property.
- John filed for divorce on April 9, 1971, alleging fraud in the inducement of the agreement, mental cruelty, and incompatibility.
- The trial court found no fraud and no mental cruelty, granted divorce on incompatibility, held the antenuptial agreement void as against public policy, and awarded Stella less than the agreement required.
- Stella appealed the refusal to enforce the agreement’s divorce-related provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether antenuptial agreements that set property rights and support obligations in the event of divorce are void as against public policy in Nevada.
2. Whether this antenuptial agreement was unfairly obtained or unconscionable such that it should not be enforced.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment invalidating the antenuptial agreement.
- The court held that premarital agreements addressing property division and support upon divorce are not per se void as against public policy.
- The court concluded the agreement was not shown to encourage divorce and was made without fraud, misrepresentation, or duress.
- The court determined the divorce provisions were not unconscionable or unreasonable under the circumstances and must be enforced.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with enforcing the agreement’s divorce terms.

## Legal Principles

- Antenuptial agreements may validly regulate property rights and support obligations upon divorce.
- Such an agreement is enforceable when it is not designed to encourage divorce and is entered into voluntarily, without fraud, misrepresentation, or duress.
- Courts may refuse enforcement where terms are unconscionable or the agreement was unfairly procured, but a general public-policy bar does not apply merely because the agreement addresses divorce.
- When a trial court finds no fraud and the agreement’s terms are fair and reasonable in context, the agreement should be enforced as written.

## Conclusion

Nevada enforces prenuptial provisions allocating property and support upon divorce when the agreement does not induce divorce, is freely made without wrongdoing, and is not unconscionable; the wife was entitled to the contractual house and payments in addition to her community property share.


Buettner v. Buettner, 89 Nev. 39, 505 P.2d 600 (Nev. 1973)