## Facts

- Howard Linwood Frey (husband) and Barbara J. Frey (wife) executed a two-page antenuptial agreement on June 19, 1973, four days before their June 23, 1973 marriage.
- The agreement provided that each party would retain sole ownership and control of individually owned and later-acquired property as if the marriage had not occurred.
- The agreement included mutual waivers of “any claim for alimony pendente lite, permanent alimony, or support or maintenance of any kind” in the event of separation.
- At the time of marriage, the wife was 22, a college graduate, and employed as a teacher; the husband was 32, established in business, and had substantially greater assets and income.
- The agreement was not accompanied by written financial disclosure, and the wife did not consult independent counsel.
- In the wife’s divorce action (a mensa et thoro), she challenged the agreement, stating she did not recall signing it and suggesting any signature resulted from deceit.
- The circuit court found she had signed the agreement (crediting expert handwriting evidence) but held the agreement void as against Maryland public policy and awarded alimony pendente lite and child support.
- The husband appealed; the Court of Appeals of Maryland took the case to resolve the public-policy question regarding alimony waivers in antenuptial agreements.

## Issues

1. Whether an antenuptial agreement that contemplates separation or divorce and includes a waiver of alimony is per se void as contrary to Maryland public policy.
2. If not per se void, what standards govern the validity and enforceability of such an agreement (including voluntariness, financial disclosure/knowledge, and fairness).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that antenuptial agreements contemplating separation or divorce, including provisions waiving alimony, are not per se void as against public policy.
- The court overruled its prior contrary rule that categorically invalidated such agreements.
- The court ruled that antenuptial agreements must be evaluated under standards applied to marital agreements, including whether the agreement was voluntary, made with adequate disclosure or knowledge, and fair and equitable in operation.
- The judgment declaring the agreement void on public-policy grounds was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to assess enforceability under the proper standards.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may modify judge-made public-policy rules when later legal and social developments make earlier rules inconsistent with current policy.
- A premarital agreement is not invalid merely because it addresses future separation or divorce or includes an alimony waiver.
- Enforceability depends on heightened contract scrutiny appropriate to the parties’ relationship, including:
  - voluntariness and absence of fraud, duress, or overreaching;
  - adequate financial disclosure or equivalent knowledge of the other party’s circumstances; and
  - fairness and equity in the agreement’s formation and operation.
- When a trial court invalidates an agreement solely on an incorrect categorical public-policy rule, the proper remedy is reversal and remand to apply the correct validity framework to the facts.

## Conclusion

Maryland rejected a categorical public-policy bar against premarital agreements waiving alimony and required courts to decide enforceability case-by-case based on voluntariness, disclosure/knowledge, and fairness, remanding for that analysis rather than voiding the agreement automatically.


Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552, 471 A.2d 705 (Md. 1984)