Facts
- A wife filed a divorce action in Michigan circuit court alleging extreme cruelty.
- The husband answered and filed a cross-bill seeking specific performance of an alleged oral antenuptial agreement concerning the wife’s property.
- The husband alleged the wife, who had a substantial separate estate, orally promised that if he came to her, married her, and lived with her, she would support him and make a will leaving him all her property if he survived her.
- The husband alleged reliance: he abandoned employment and prospects, left Kansas, relocated to Michigan, and proceeded with the marriage based on the promise.
- The husband sought equitable relief requiring production of the will (or execution of a duplicate), treating the will as a binding property settlement, substituting a decree for the will if necessary, and enjoining the wife from disposing of property inconsistently with the promise.
- The wife demurred to the cross-bill for lack of equity, asserting the alleged agreement was void under the Statute of Frauds because it was not in writing.
- The circuit court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the cross-bill; the husband appealed.
Issues
- Whether an oral premarital promise to make a will leaving property to a spouse, made in consideration of marriage, is void under Michigan’s Statute of Frauds absent a signed writing.
- Whether such an alleged oral agreement can be specifically enforced in equity through orders compelling execution/production of a will or substituting a decree for a will.
Decision
- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the husband’s cross-bill.
- The court held the alleged undertaking was an agreement made upon consideration of marriage within the Statute of Frauds.
- Because no signed writing or memorandum was alleged, the agreement was void and could not support specific performance or related equitable relief.
Legal Principles
- Under Michigan’s Statute of Frauds, any agreement made upon consideration of marriage (other than mutual promises to marry) is void unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.
- A premarital promise to dispose of property by will in exchange for marriage is an agreement made upon consideration of marriage and must satisfy the statute’s writing requirement.
- A party cannot avoid the Statute of Frauds by characterizing relocation, abandonment of employment, or similar acts as the “real” consideration when the alleged bargain is tied to and induced by the contemplated marriage.
- Equity will not grant specific performance or substitute remedies (including a decree operating as a will) when the underlying agreement is void by statute.
Conclusion
The court refused to enforce the husband’s claimed oral antenuptial bargain because it was a marriage-consideration agreement subject to the Statute of Frauds and therefore void without a signed writing, defeating any claim for specific performance or comparable equitable relief.