## Facts

- Pamela F. Elgar and George P. Elgar lived together for several years and married in Westport, Connecticut, on September 25, 1988.
- In July 1988, George told Pamela he would require an antenuptial agreement as a condition of marriage.
- Three days before the wedding, George directed Pamela to sign the agreement the next day at his attorney’s office in New York.
- On September 23, 1988, Pamela first saw the written agreement at the New York office of George’s attorney, who reviewed it with both parties; Pamela did not retain independent counsel.
- The agreement included mutual waivers of rights in the other’s property in the event of divorce or death and contained a New York choice-of-law provision.
- George died intestate in 1990, survived by Pamela and two adult children from a prior marriage; there were no children of the marriage.
- The probate court appointed George’s son, Eric M. Elgar, as administrator and approved the antenuptial agreement, which barred Pamela from claiming a statutory share of the estate.
- Pamela appealed; after a de novo proceeding, an attorney trial referee found the agreement valid and enforceable, and the trial court rendered judgment for the estate administrator.

## Issues

1. Whether the antenuptial agreement’s New York choice-of-law provision was valid and enforceable under Connecticut conflict-of-laws principles.
2. Whether, applying New York law, the agreement was unenforceable due to fraud, duress, undue influence, overreaching, or lack of meaningful choice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment enforcing the agreement.
- The court upheld the New York choice-of-law clause because New York had substantial contacts with the parties and transaction and there was no proof the clause was procured by fraud or undue influence; Connecticut did not have a materially greater interest that would override the parties’ selection.
- Applying New York law, the court held the agreement enforceable because the challenger failed to prove fraud or overreaching; the referee’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
- As enforced, the agreement barred the surviving spouse’s statutory share claim against the intestate estate.

## Legal Principles

- A contractual choice-of-law provision is generally enforced when the chosen state has a substantial relationship or reasonable basis for the selection.
- A choice-of-law clause may be disregarded if application of the chosen law would violate a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest whose law would otherwise apply.
- Antenuptial agreements governed by New York law are treated as ordinary contracts and are enforceable absent proof of fraud, duress, undue influence, overreaching, or similar misconduct; the challenger bears the burden of proof.
- Lack of independent counsel or unequal bargaining position, without proof of improper procurement, does not by itself render an antenuptial agreement unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an antenuptial agreement that waived the surviving spouse’s inheritance rights, holding that New York law applied under the agreement’s choice-of-law clause and that the spouse failed to prove the agreement was procured through misconduct sufficient to defeat enforcement.


Elgar v. Elgar, 679 A.2d 937 (Conn. 1996)