## Facts

- Claudia Porter (wife) and Harry H. Porter III (husband) married in April 2003 and had four minor children.
- Wife grew up in Germany. English was her second language, and she was unfamiliar with the American divorce process.
- In early December 2002, before the parties were engaged, husband told wife he would have his attorneys prepare a prenuptial agreement, but the parties did not discuss specific terms.
- On December 24, 2002, without further discussion or advance review, husband took wife to a bank to sign the prenuptial agreement before a notary.
- The visit to the bank lasted about five minutes, and husband directed wife to sign the document.
- Wife did not understand the agreement’s terms, did not have a meaningful opportunity to read it before signing, and did not consult an attorney.
- Wife had never seen the list of husband’s assets that was attached to the agreement.
- Husband told wife that people planning to marry commonly sign prenuptial agreements and led her to believe the agreement was not important.
- The parties became engaged after signing the agreement.
- In November 2011, wife filed for dissolution and asked the trial court to declare the prenuptial agreement unenforceable, testifying she would not have signed if she had understood it waived spousal-support and property-distribution rights.
- The trial court entered a dissolution judgment that included spousal support and a division of property, and it ruled the premarital agreement unenforceable. Husband appealed; wife cross-appealed regarding the property division.

## Issues

1. Whether the premarital agreement was enforceable under ORS 108.725, specifically whether wife executed the agreement voluntarily.
2. Whether the trial court’s division of marital property was “just and proper.”

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals declined to conduct de novo review and instead reviewed legal issues for errors of law and factual findings for any evidence in the record.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the premarital agreement was unenforceable because wife did not execute it voluntarily as required by ORS 108.725.
- Because lack of voluntariness was sufficient to affirm, the court did not reach the trial court’s alternative ruling that the agreement was unconscionable.
- The court affirmed the dissolution judgment and affirmed, without further discussion, the trial court’s property division on wife’s cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 108.725, a premarital agreement is unenforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought did not execute the agreement voluntarily.
- Voluntary execution is evaluated from the surrounding circumstances, including whether there was advance notice of the terms, adequate time to read and consider the agreement, and a realistic chance to seek independent legal advice.
- Surprise presentation of a significant agreement for immediate notarized signing, combined with time pressure and lack of counsel, can support a finding that a party did not sign voluntarily.
- A party’s education or ability to speak English does not, by itself, establish voluntary execution when the setting and timing prevent meaningful review and understanding of the agreement’s consequences.
- When an appellate court affirms unenforceability on the ground that an agreement was not executed voluntarily, it may affirm without addressing other enforceability theories such as unconscionability.
- In Oregon dissolution appeals where de novo review is declined, the Court of Appeals defers to trial-court factfinding if supported by evidence in the record.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution judgment, holding that the parties’ prenuptial agreement was unenforceable because wife did not execute it voluntarily under ORS 108.725, and it also affirmed the trial court’s property division.


Marriage of Porter, 381 P.3d 873 (2016)