## Facts

- William T. Marsh (“Bill”), age 78, and Juanita Jacobs Marsh (“Juanita”), age 58, married on March 19, 1991; both had been widowed.
- Juanita agreed to marry Bill only if he would provide for her financially, based on losses she incurred during her prior husband’s illness.
- On the morning of the wedding, the parties signed three documents prepared by Juanita’s attorney: (1) an “Agreement in Consideration of Marriage” (premarital agreement), (2) a trust agreement, and (3) a release; Bill did not have separate counsel.
- The premarital agreement required Bill, in exchange for Juanita’s agreement to marry, to transfer one-half of his assets (including certain investment accounts) to a trust within 30 days after marriage as Juanita’s separate property.
- The trust named Juanita as trustee and sole beneficiary of the corpus; Bill and Juanita were equal income beneficiaries while both lived; the trust terminated at Bill’s death with corpus distributed to Juanita.
- The release stated Bill had been strongly urged to obtain counsel but declined, and that both parties understood the agreement, entered it freely with informed consent, and without fraud, duress, or overreaching.
- After marriage, Bill paid about $189,000 into the trust but refused to transfer additional assets.
- Juanita sued to enforce the premarital agreement (not in a divorce); after a bench trial, the court enforced it and awarded Juanita $867,778 plus pre- and post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees.
- Bill appealed, primarily challenging unconscionability, disclosure/knowledge, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest (later withdrawing challenges to attorney’s fees).

## Issues

1. Whether the premarital agreement was unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, as a matter of law at the time it was executed.
2. Whether Bill’s lack of independent counsel and the circumstances of execution supported an unconscionability finding.
3. Whether the agreement was defective due to inadequate disclosure of Juanita’s property/obligations or lack of adequate knowledge or waiver.
4. Whether alleged evidentiary errors or prejudgment-interest calculations required reversal.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment enforcing the premarital agreement and trust transfer obligation.
- The premarital agreement was not unconscionable as a matter of law when signed.
- The trial court’s evidentiary rulings and prejudgment-interest award did not warrant reversal.
- The monetary award to Juanita ($867,778 plus applicable interest) was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Unconscionability of a premarital agreement is assessed as of the time of execution, not based on later events or subsequent performance.
- A written release acknowledging informed consent, absence of fraud/duress/overreaching, and an opportunity to obtain counsel (even if declined) is strong evidence the agreement was voluntary and informed.
- A premarital agreement may be enforceable even if substantively one-sided, so long as competent parties voluntarily enter it without fraud, duress, or overreaching.
- Lack of a formal, detailed financial disclosure does not automatically render a premarital agreement unconscionable where the complaining party had sufficient knowledge or means of knowledge and an opportunity to seek advice.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a premarital agreement requiring a substantial transfer of the husband’s assets into a trust for the wife’s benefit, holding the agreement was not unconscionable when executed and that the trial court’s additional rulings, including interest calculations, did not justify reversal.


Marsh v. Marsh, 949 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997)