## Facts

- Florence and Charles Button married in 1969; both had been previously married.
- Before marriage, they signed a prenuptial agreement drafted by Mr. Button’s attorney; Mrs. Button received no formal, itemized disclosure of Mr. Button’s assets, though she knew he had significant property.
- Mrs. Button later received about $12,000 in life insurance proceeds from her former husband and gave them to her daughter.
- In 1974, after Mr. Button sold his business, the parties executed a postnuptial agreement (also drafted by Mr. Button’s attorney) that superseded the 1969 agreement.
- At the time of the 1974 agreement, Mr. Button’s property was about $110,000; Mrs. Button’s assets remained comparatively small; again there was no formal asset list or valuations provided to her.
- The 1974 agreement provided that each spouse would keep separate property and would split equally the property jointly acquired during the marriage; it also purported to waive support and alimony.
- Mrs. Button filed for divorce in 1983; applying the 1974 agreement, the trial court valued Mrs. Button’s share at $7,882.10 and Mr. Button’s at $255,103.99.

## Issues

1. Under Wis. Stat. § 767.255(11), when is a marital property agreement “inequitable” and therefore not binding on the divorce court?
2. Should equitableness be assessed only at execution, or also at the time of divorce?

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the property-division judgment enforcing the 1974 postnuptial agreement and remanded.
- The court held that a marital property agreement is binding under § 767.255(11) only if it satisfies a three-part equitableness test: fair and reasonable disclosure, voluntary execution, and substantively fair terms.
- The court held disclosure and voluntariness are evaluated at the time of execution.
- The court held substantive fairness is evaluated at execution and may be reexamined at divorce if a significant change in circumstances makes enforcement inequitable.
- The circuit court erred by failing to apply this framework and by relying mainly on Mrs. Button’s general awareness and the existence of an agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Written marital property agreements are presumptively equitable and binding under Wis. Stat. § 767.255(11), but courts must refuse enforcement if the terms are inequitable as to either spouse.
- Equitableness requires: (1) fair and reasonable disclosure of financial status by each spouse, (2) voluntary and free entry into the agreement, and (3) substantively fair property-division terms.
- “Fair and reasonable disclosure” depends on circumstances and requires enough information for an informed decision; a signature alone does not establish informed consent or voluntariness.
- Substantive fairness is assessed at execution and may be reassessed at divorce when significant changed circumstances render an otherwise fair agreement inequitable.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court required courts to evaluate marital property agreements under a three-part test focused on disclosure, voluntariness, and substantive fairness, and it permitted later review of substantive fairness at divorce when significant changes make enforcement inequitable; the case was remanded for application of these standards.


Button v. Button, 388 N.W.2d 546 (Wis. 1986)