## Facts

- John Albert Hollett, a wealthy and sophisticated real estate investor, became engaged to Erin Hollett, who was substantially younger and had limited education and business experience.
- John had five children from a prior marriage and remained obligated under a large divorce/property settlement to his first wife, a liability Erin did not know about.
- John told Erin he would not marry without a prenuptial agreement, but the subject was not pursued again until shortly before the wedding.
- The wedding was scheduled for August 18, 1990, with significant preparations completed and over 200 guests invited.
- John retained counsel to draft a prenuptial agreement in July 1990.
- Erin first learned of the agreement on August 16, 1990, less than 48 hours before the wedding, and was distressed by the demand to sign.
- John’s counsel arranged for an attorney to advise Erin; Erin did not select the attorney, and the attorney’s fee was to be paid by John.
- Erin met her attorney only once, on August 17, 1990; the attorney had insufficient time to verify disclosures or negotiate substantial revisions.
- Erin signed the prenuptial agreement on the morning of the wedding, while the ceremony was imminent and guests were arriving.
- After John’s death, Erin petitioned the probate court to invalidate the agreement, alleging duress/undue influence, insufficient financial disclosure, and lack of effective independent counsel.
- The probate court upheld the agreement as enforceable against Erin.

## Issues

1. Whether the prenuptial agreement was executed voluntarily, or whether timing and wedding-related pressure constituted duress negating consent.
2. Whether the proponent of enforcement proved full and fair financial disclosure (or knowledge) at the time of execution.
3. Whether Erin had effective independent counsel under the circumstances of selection, payment, and time constraints.
4. What level of scrutiny and burden of proof applies to enforcement of prenuptial agreements given disparities in bargaining power and sophistication.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the probate court’s order enforcing the prenuptial agreement and remanded.
- The court held that the proponents of the agreement failed to carry their burden to show Erin entered the agreement voluntarily under the governing standard.
- The court treated the late presentation of the agreement, imminent wedding, and resulting pressure as undermining voluntariness.
- The court found the purported independent counsel was not effectively independent given the circumstances and lack of time for meaningful advice or negotiation.
- The court noted disclosure concerns, including Erin’s lack of knowledge of a substantial ongoing financial obligation from John’s prior divorce, which further weighed against enforceability.

## Legal Principles

- Prenuptial agreements are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, particularly where there is a major disparity in wealth, sophistication, or bargaining position.
- The party seeking enforcement bears the burden to prove the agreement was executed voluntarily and without coercive circumstances amounting to duress.
- Enforceability requires full and fair disclosure of the other party’s financial condition (or actual knowledge sufficient to make an informed choice) at the time of execution.
- The presence of counsel is not dispositive; courts evaluate whether legal advice was meaningfully independent and practically effective given the timing and opportunity to review, investigate, and negotiate.
- Presentation of a prenuptial agreement on the eve of, or on, the wedding—when cancellation would impose significant social and practical costs—may support a finding that execution was not voluntary.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated enforcement of the prenuptial agreement against the surviving spouse because the proponents did not prove voluntary execution under heightened scrutiny, given the agreement’s last-minute presentation, the intense wedding-day pressure, inadequate opportunity for effective independent advice, and unresolved disclosure concerns.


In re Estate of Hollett, 150 N.H. 39, 834 A.2d 348 (N.H. 2003)