## Facts

- John Z. DeLorean and Cristina DeLorean signed an antenuptial agreement on May 8, 1973, only hours before their marriage.
- The agreement provided that property, income, and earnings acquired before and after marriage would remain the separate property of the acquiring spouse.
- The marriage lasted approximately thirteen years, and the parties had two minor children.
- Most potential assets were held in the husband’s name; the potential value exceeded $20 million.
- Cristina contested enforcement, alleging she lacked full and complete disclosure of John’s financial circumstances and that the agreement resulted from undue influence given the parties’ disparity in financial sophistication and the last-minute timing.
- John sought to enforce the agreement in the divorce action and to have disputes concerning it resolved, at least in part, through arbitration.

## Issues

1. What disclosure and fairness requirements govern enforcement of an antenuptial agreement that substantially limits a spouse’s financial rights upon divorce?
2. To what extent may enforceability and related disputes concerning an antenuptial agreement in a divorce proceeding be referred to arbitration rather than decided by the court?

## Decision

- The court refused to enforce the antenuptial agreement on these facts.
- The court found the husband did not meet the obligation of full and complete financial disclosure, even crediting his account of what was disclosed.
- The court held that arbitration could not displace the court’s responsibility to determine the agreement’s validity and fairness in the matrimonial proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Antenuptial agreements fixing post-divorce rights may be valid and enforceable, but they are subject to close judicial scrutiny for fairness.
- A spouse seeking enforcement bears a substantial burden to show the other spouse entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily after full and complete disclosure of the nature and extent of income, property, and financial prospects.
- Execution shortly before the wedding, combined with disparity in sophistication and limited opportunity for independent advice, supports findings of unfairness or overreaching.
- In divorce matters, the court retains independent authority to review the validity and enforceability of marital agreements and cannot delegate that responsibility to private arbitration in a manner that limits judicial review.
- Issues affecting statutory matrimonial policies, including equitable distribution and matters implicating children’s interests, remain subject to judicial oversight.

## Conclusion

The court declined to enforce a last-minute prenuptial agreement that would have left the wife with little after a long marriage because the husband failed to provide full financial disclosure and the circumstances suggested unfairness; it also held that arbitration could not supplant the court’s duty to determine enforceability and protect matrimonial policies.


DeLorean v. DeLorean, 211 N.J. Super. 432, 511 A.2d 1257 (Ch. Div. 1986)