## Facts

- Catherine Mallen and Peter Mallen cohabited for about four years before marrying; Catherine became pregnant shortly before the wedding.
- Nine or ten days before the scheduled wedding, Peter presented Catherine with a prenuptial agreement drafted by his attorney.
- Catherine alleged Peter said the agreement was “just a formality” and that he would always take care of her.
- Catherine consulted an attorney, met with Peter and his counsel several times, and negotiated modifications, including increased life-insurance benefits and alimony increases tied to years of marriage.
- The agreement provided that on divorce Catherine would receive a basic alimony amount adjusted for length of marriage, and that assets would remain with the spouse who originally owned or later acquired them.
- At execution, Catherine had a high-school education, worked as a restaurant hostess, and had about $10,000 net worth; Peter had a college degree, owned and operated a business, and had net worth of at least $8.5 million.
- After 18 years of marriage and four children, Peter filed for divorce in 2003 and sought to enforce the agreement; his net worth had increased substantially by that time.
- The trial court enforced the agreement, incorporated it into the divorce decree, awarded Catherine $2,900 per month in alimony for four years, and awarded Peter the assets he brought into the marriage and those accumulated during the marriage.

## Issues

1. Whether the prenuptial agreement was invalid because it was obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure.
2. Whether the agreement was unconscionable at the time it was executed.
3. Whether post-execution changes in circumstances made enforcement unfair and unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment enforcing the prenuptial agreement.
- The court held the wife failed to establish fraud, duress, misrepresentation, mistake, or material nondisclosure sufficient to invalidate the agreement.
- The court held the agreement was not unconscionable, even though it was financially unfavorable to the wife.
- The court held that the length of the marriage, children, and growth in the husband’s wealth did not constitute a change in circumstances making enforcement unfair and unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- A prenuptial agreement is evaluated under a three-part test: (1) procurement by fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts; (2) unconscionability; and (3) post-execution changes rendering enforcement unfair and unreasonable.
- A party who has an opportunity to review an agreement and to seek advice must exercise ordinary diligence; failure to do so undermines claims of having been misled by assurances inconsistent with the written contract.
- Conditioning marriage on signing a prenuptial agreement, without wrongful coercion, does not constitute legal duress merely because it creates emotional pressure or occurs close to the wedding date.
- Material nondisclosure is not shown where the challenging spouse has sufficient general knowledge of the other spouse’s financial condition, including awareness of substantial wealth and business ownership.
- Unconscionability requires more than inequality or a poor bargain; the agreement must be so one-sided as to indicate overreaching or shock the conscience.
- Foreseeable developments, including continued wealth accumulation by an already-wealthy spouse and a lengthy marriage contemplated by escalating support terms, do not ordinarily satisfy the change-of-circumstances factor.

## Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court enforced the parties’ prenuptial agreement, concluding that the wife’s allegations did not satisfy the fraud/duress/nondisclosure, unconscionability, or change-of-circumstances grounds required to defeat enforcement under Georgia law.


Mallen v. Mallen, 280 Ga. 43, 622 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. 2005)