## Facts

- Wilma Cramp Burtoff, a nurse with modest assets and income, agreed to marry Dr. Samuel Burtoff, a physician with substantial wealth and adult children from a prior marriage.
- Samuel made a premarital (antenuptial) agreement a condition of marriage to prevent future divorce litigation and preserve most of his estate for his children.
- Wilma initially objected but signed after Samuel indicated he would not marry without the agreement.
- Wilma was represented by independent counsel who reviewed the agreement drafted by Samuel’s attorney.
- The parties exchanged financial disclosures; Samuel provided tax and asset information, and Wilma disclosed her assets and salary.
- The agreement fixed Wilma’s financial recovery on dissolution as a lump sum based on marriage length and stated it was in full settlement of support and maintenance, “pendente lite or otherwise”; it also provided a payment if Samuel died during the marriage.
- The parties married in October 1975; the marriage deteriorated within months, and shortly before the first anniversary Samuel excluded Wilma from the marital home and moved her belongings elsewhere.
- Wilma sought temporary (pendente lite) support during the marital litigation despite the agreement’s waiver.

## Issues

1. Whether premarital agreements that fix or waive spousal support upon divorce are void per se as against public policy in the District of Columbia.
2. If not void per se, what standards govern enforceability of such agreements, and whether this agreement satisfied those standards.
3. Whether a waiver of pendente lite support is enforceable, or whether a court may award temporary support to prevent a spouse from becoming a public charge.

## Decision

- The court held that premarital agreements setting support rights upon dissolution are not void per se on public-policy grounds in the District of Columbia.
- The court affirmed enforcement of this agreement because it was executed voluntarily, with independent counsel, and with full financial disclosure, and it was not unconscionable when made.
- The court recognized a limited residual judicial authority to award temporary support in exceptional circumstances to prevent a spouse from becoming a public charge, but found no basis to invalidate the agreement on that ground.
- Judgment affirming the agreement’s validity and enforceability was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Premarital agreements addressing spousal support upon dissolution are enforceable and not categorically barred by public policy in the District of Columbia.
- Enforceability depends on heightened scrutiny, including: (a) voluntary execution without fraud, duress, or overreaching; (b) full and fair disclosure (or actual knowledge) of the other party’s financial circumstances at execution; and (c) absence of unconscionability at execution and absence of enforcement results that are fundamentally unfair or contrary to public policy at dissolution.
- Even where an agreement waives pendente lite support, courts may retain narrow authority to order temporary support to avoid a spouse becoming a public charge.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a premarital agreement fixing and waiving spousal support, holding such agreements are not automatically invalid and will be enforced when entered voluntarily with meaningful financial disclosure and without unconscionability, subject to a narrow exception permitting temporary support to prevent destitution.


Burtoff v. Burtoff, 418 A.2d 1085 (D.C. 1980)