## Facts

- Thomas R. Gross, a wealthy businessman with substantial assets and children from a prior marriage, planned to marry Ida Jane Gross, who had minimal assets and children from a prior marriage.
- Before marrying in 1968, the parties negotiated and executed an antenuptial agreement addressing property division and spousal support in the event of divorce.
- The agreement was drafted by Thomas’s attorney, revised after review by Ida’s counsel, and signed shortly before the marriage.
- The agreement limited Ida’s rights at divorce, including a cap on sustenance alimony and a waiver of any division of Thomas’s property and certain divorce-related expenses.
- During the nearly 14-year marriage, Thomas’s assets increased substantially while Ida’s economic position remained comparatively weak.
- Ida filed for divorce alleging extreme cruelty; the trial court granted the divorce on that ground.

## Issues

1. Whether antenuptial agreements providing for property disposition and sustenance alimony upon divorce are void as against public policy.
2. If such agreements are generally valid, whether they become unenforceable when the party seeking enforcement is found at fault in the divorce.
3. Whether, and to what extent, a trial court may modify property-division and spousal-support terms in an antenuptial agreement at divorce based on changed circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that antenuptial agreements addressing property disposition and sustenance alimony upon divorce are not contrary to public policy.
- The court adopted a three-part test for validity and enforceability: the agreement must be voluntary (without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching), preceded by full disclosure or full knowledge of the other’s assets, and must not encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce.
- The court rejected a rule that marital fault automatically abrogates an otherwise valid antenuptial agreement absent an express contractual provision.
- The court held that spousal-support provisions must additionally be conscionable at the time of divorce; upon motion, a court may modify an unconscionable support term using statutory spousal-support factors.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ fault-based approach and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the support limitation was unconscionable at the time of divorce and, if so, to adjust support accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- Antenuptial agreements may validly allocate property rights and set spousal-support obligations effective upon divorce, consistent with public policy.
- Enforceability requires: (1) voluntary execution without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; (2) full disclosure or full knowledge and understanding of the nature, value, and extent of the other party’s property; and (3) terms that do not promote divorce or divorce-based financial gain.
- Post-marital misconduct does not invalidate a valid antenuptial agreement unless the agreement expressly conditions enforceability on fault or misconduct.
- Spousal-support limits in an antenuptial agreement are subject to an additional conscionability review at the time of separation or divorce and may be modified if unconscionable.

## Conclusion

Ohio recognizes antenuptial agreements that address divorce-related property and support, rejects automatic fault-based nonenforcement, and requires courts to assess whether agreed spousal-support terms are conscionable at the time of divorce, modifying them if necessary under statutory support factors.


Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St. 3d 99, 464 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 1984)