## Facts

- Sara Gideon Hill (plaintiff) and Harry Murdock Hill signed a written prenuptial agreement in Salisbury, Maryland on December 30, 1965, in contemplation of marriage the next day.
- The agreement recited that Harry owned real property in Seaford, Delaware, along with stocks, securities, and life insurance; Sara owned two properties in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
- The agreement required Harry, within 30 days after marriage, to (i) convey all his real property to himself and Sara as tenants by the entireties, (ii) transfer his stocks and securities (except U.S. savings bonds) to them as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and (iii) name Sara as primary beneficiary on his life insurance policies and not change that designation during her lifetime.
- Sara made reciprocal promises concerning her Gettysburg property, including that if she later became sole owner (depending on survivorship events involving her son), she would convey that property to herself and Harry as tenants by the entireties.
- The agreement was not executed in the presence of at least two witnesses.
- Sara and Harry married in Maryland on December 31, 1965.
- During the marriage, Harry did not convey his Delaware real property to himself and Sara as tenants by the entireties as the agreement required.
- Harry died domiciled in Delaware on October 20, 1967, less than two years after the marriage.
- Harry’s will devised the Delaware property in equal shares to his mother, Anna Mary Hill, his sister, Ruth M. Huhn, and his brother, Thomas Wallace Hill (defendants), who were also described as residuary beneficiaries and life insurance beneficiaries.
- Sara sued the family members in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to enforce the prenuptial agreement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing Delaware law controlled contract validity and required an antenuptial agreement to be executed at least ten days before marriage and in the presence of two witnesses—requirements the Maryland agreement did not meet.
- Sara contended Maryland law governed validity because the agreement was executed and the marriage occurred in Maryland, and Maryland did not impose Delaware’s formal requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether Delaware’s statutory execution requirements for antenuptial agreements governed the validity of a prenuptial agreement executed in Maryland in contemplation of a Maryland marriage.
2. Whether, applying Delaware choice-of-law principles at the pleading stage, the complaint stated a claim to enforce the agreement against the decedent’s devisees and insurance beneficiaries.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court held that Maryland law governed the validity of the prenuptial agreement for purposes of the motion.
- Because the agreement was alleged to be valid under Maryland law, and Delaware’s formalities were not treated as automatically invalidating a foreign agreement, Sara’s complaint stated a claim for equitable relief in Delaware.
- The ruling permitted Sara to proceed to attempt to prove the agreement and obtain an appropriate remedy (such as specific performance or other equitable relief) against those taking under the will or as beneficiaries.

## Legal Principles

- In resolving a conflict-of-laws question concerning contract validity, Delaware may apply an analysis that looks to the state with the most meaningful contacts to the transaction; execution and contemplated performance surrounding the marriage may support applying the law of the place of contracting and marriage.
- A forum state’s statutory formalities for locally made antenuptial agreements do not necessarily operate as a blanket rule invalidating an out-of-state prenuptial agreement that was valid where executed, absent a clear directive or strong public policy requiring nonrecognition.
- A surviving spouse may seek equitable enforcement of a decedent’s valid contractual obligations against devisees, legatees, and other beneficiaries who take the property subject to those obligations.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of well-pleaded allegations and asks only whether the plaintiff has alleged facts that, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Court of Chancery held that Sara Hill’s complaint to enforce the Maryland-executed prenuptial agreement stated a claim because Maryland law governed the agreement’s validity at the pleading stage, and Delaware’s stricter statutory execution requirements did not automatically bar enforcement of a foreign agreement valid where made; therefore, the heirs’ motion to dismiss was denied and the case could proceed for equitable relief.


Hill v. Hill, 262 A.2d 661 (1970)