## Facts

- After country singer Jim Reeves died, his widow, Mary Reeves Davis (Mary), inherited substantial property producing annual income of about $300,000–$400,000.
- Mary later became engaged to W. Terry Davis (Terry); Terry’s premarital assets were about $25,000–$30,000.
- Two days before their 1969 wedding, Mary presented Terry with an antenuptial (prenuptial) agreement prepared by Mary’s lawyer.
- Terry signed the agreement the next day without consulting an attorney.
- The agreement provided that each spouse would keep separate property and its income, and that each waived rights in the other’s property at death, including rights a surviving spouse would otherwise have by statute.
- The agreement recited that each party had disclosed assets, but stated the disclosures did not purport to be all-inclusive and that any values were estimates.
- At later litigation, Mary’s former secretary, Joyce Jackson, testified she recalled typing a list of assets but did not recall that it contained values; the referenced list itself could not be produced.
- After more than 30 years of marriage, Mary died in 1999. Her will left Terry a specific bequest of $100,000 and left the balance of her estate to others.
- Terry petitioned for an elective share and other statutory spousal benefits; the estate’s administrator and heirs asserted the antenuptial agreement barred those claims.
- The trial court enforced the agreement, relying largely on the agreement’s disclosure language, and denied Terry’s elective-share claim. Terry appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the administrator and heirs proved the antenuptial agreement was entered into freely, knowledgeably, and in good faith, including proof of full and fair disclosure of Mary’s assets (or Terry’s independent knowledge), so that Terry’s elective-share and related statutory rights were waived.
2. Whether the agreement’s disclosure recitals, without the missing asset list or reliable proof of its contents, were enough to establish the required disclosure under Tennessee law.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment enforcing the antenuptial agreement.
- The court held the administrator and heirs did not carry their burden to prove Terry executed the agreement knowledgeably because they failed to show Mary made a full and fair disclosure of the nature, extent, and value of her assets, or that Terry otherwise had sufficient independent knowledge.
- The court treated the agreement’s disclosure recitals as evidence but not conclusive proof of what was actually disclosed, especially given the agreement’s qualifiers (“not all-inclusive” disclosures and “estimated” values) and the absence of the asset list.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the antenuptial agreement not barring Terry from pursuing an elective share and related spousal rights.

## Legal Principles

- The party seeking to enforce an antenuptial agreement bears the burden to prove it was entered into freely, knowledgeably, and in good faith, and without fraud, duress, or undue influence.
- To enforce a waiver of a surviving spouse’s statutory rights at death, the proponent must show either (a) full and fair disclosure of the other party’s assets (nature, extent, and value), or (b) the waiving spouse’s independent knowledge sufficient to make the waiver knowing.
- Contractual recitals that disclosure occurred are probative but are not self-proving; courts may require proof of what was actually disclosed, especially when the writing indicates disclosures were incomplete or values were approximations.
- Where the proponent cannot produce the referenced disclosure materials or otherwise establish their contents with reliable proof, the proponent may fail to meet the disclosure requirement, rendering the waiver unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that Mary Reeves Davis’s estate could not enforce a prenuptial waiver against W. Terry Davis because the administrator and heirs did not prove Mary provided full and fair financial disclosure before execution (or that Terry had adequate independent knowledge), so Terry could pursue an elective share and related statutory spousal benefits on remand.


In re Estate of Davis, 213 S.W.3d 288 (2006)