## Facts

- Wife, a Ukrainian national with limited English at the time, came to the United States on a three-month visa to marry Husband and was financially dependent on him.
- Wife became pregnant in October or early November 1997; her visa was set to expire on December 4, 1997, requiring marriage to remain in the United States.
- Husband prepared a premarital agreement and told Wife she would have to sign it before marriage; the parties disputed when she first received it.
- Wife testified she received the agreement about two weeks before signing and attempted to translate it into Russian but could not understand key legal language even after translation efforts.
- Wife did not retain independent counsel, stating she had no money to pay a lawyer to review the agreement.
- Wife signed the premarital agreement on November 25, 1997, shortly before the marriage and near the visa deadline.
- After separation, Wife filed for divorce seeking custody, support, equitable distribution, and alimony; Husband sought to enforce the premarital agreement to bar or limit her claims.
- The family court found the premarital agreement unenforceable due to duress and lack of meaningful understanding and denied Husband’s motion to dismiss or limit Wife’s claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the premarital agreement was enforceable where Wife signed shortly before marriage while pregnant, economically dependent, facing an imminent visa expiration, lacking independent counsel, and unable to meaningfully understand the agreement’s language.
2. Whether the family court properly invalidated the agreement based on duress and lack of voluntary, informed consent under the totality of the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s ruling that the premarital agreement was unenforceable.
- The court held that the circumstances surrounding execution supported a finding of duress and lack of meaningful opportunity for informed consent.
- As a result, Husband could not rely on the agreement to bar or restrict Wife’s divorce-related claims.

## Legal Principles

- A premarital agreement must be entered into voluntarily and may be invalidated if executed under duress.
- Voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, including time to review, access to independent counsel, and the party’s ability to understand the agreement.
- The absence of independent counsel is not automatically fatal, but it weighs strongly against enforcement when combined with severe bargaining-power disparities.
- Duress can arise from combined pressures that effectively deprive a party of free will, not only from explicit threats or physical coercion.
- Courts may treat immigration-related pressures, language barriers, and economic dependence as relevant circumstances in determining whether consent was voluntary and informed.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed refusal to enforce the premarital agreement because Wife’s execution occurred under coercive conditions—tight timing tied to visa expiration, pregnancy, financial dependence, lack of counsel, and limited language comprehension—preventing voluntary and informed consent.


Holler v. Holler, 612 S.E.2d 469 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)