## Facts

- John M. Ranney and Helen M. Ranney married in 1947 and divorced in 1958; the divorce decree awarded Helen the home and furnishings, an automobile, $25,000 alimony, and child support.
- The parties agreed to remarry in January 1961; the day before the wedding, John presented Helen with a written antenuptial agreement as a condition of remarriage.
- Helen signed the agreement without independent counsel and later denied reading it before signing; John kept the executed document in his safety deposit box.
- The agreement stated that if the parties separated or divorced, each would retain the property owned at the time of the remarriage; John would complete payment of the prior alimony award; and Helen would make no further claim for alimony, support, or division of property—leaving both “in the same financial position as they were before the marriage.”
- The parties remained married for more than eleven years; during that time, property was acquired.
- In 1972, John filed for divorce and sought enforcement of the antenuptial agreement.
- The trial court granted John a divorce, enforced the agreement, and awarded Helen the home and car but declined to award additional alimony or divide property acquired during the second marriage.
- Helen appealed, challenging the agreement’s validity and the resulting limits on her property and support rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the antenuptial agreement limiting property division and future alimony upon divorce was valid and enforceable under Kansas law.
2. Whether the agreement was void as against public policy because its operation tended to encourage separation or divorce by allowing one spouse to profit from dissolution.
3. Whether the agreement, properly construed, barred the wife from any interest in property acquired during the remarriage.
4. Whether the agreement was “just, fair and equitable” in light of the circumstances of execution and its practical effect after a lengthy remarriage.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment enforcing the antenuptial agreement.
- The court held the agreement void and unenforceable because it was contrary to public policy and not just and equitable in operation.
- The case was remanded for division of property and consideration of support without regard to the antenuptial agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Antenuptial agreements are not automatically invalid, but they are enforceable only if entered into fairly, in good faith, and with terms that are just and equitable.
- Agreements that tend to encourage or promote separation or divorce are void as against public policy.
- Courts scrutinize the substantive effect of a premarital agreement, including whether it leaves one spouse without a meaningful claim to property accumulated during a lengthy marriage or without reasonable support.
- Where an agreement’s language would exclude a spouse from after-acquired property and produce an inequitable result, courts will not enforce that construction, particularly when it creates a financial incentive to dissolve the marriage.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the parties’ premarital agreement because its effect after an extended remarriage would leave the wife in her pre-marriage position while allowing the husband to retain the marital gains, creating an impermissible incentive to seek divorce and producing an inequitable outcome; the matter was returned for property division and support determinations without the agreement.


Ranney v. Ranney, 548 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1976)