## Facts

- On November 29, 1999, Bonnie Reece and Eugene Reece signed an antenuptial agreement (Agreement) and married on December 4, 1999.
- The Agreement recited that each party owned separate property and intended to keep that property separate during the marriage.
- The Agreement stated the parties had children from prior marriages and waived marital rights (including the right to elect against the other’s will) so their estates could pass to their respective children.
- The Agreement included statements that each party had consulted, or had the chance to consult, independent counsel; understood the Agreement; and that full disclosure of assets had been made.
- Attached exhibits listed each party’s assets.
- Eugene’s exhibit listed significant assets, including real estate, a $357,000 promissory note from Routh Packing Company, and 1,687 shares of J.H. Routh Packing Company stock; the exhibit did not state the stock’s current value.
- Bonnie’s exhibit likewise listed assets, and not every listed item included a stated value.
- Eugene died intestate on July 5, 2003.
- Bonnie sought surviving-spouse benefits and filed a declaratory-judgment action against Linda Elliott and Diane Dempsey, individually and as co-executrixes of Eugene’s estate, seeking rescission of the Agreement.
- Bonnie’s theory was that Eugene failed to make full and fair disclosure because the Agreement did not include the value of the Routh Packing Company shares.
- At trial, Bonnie testified that her attorney reviewed the Agreement and Eugene’s asset list before she signed; she did not ask her attorney to investigate the stock’s value; she did not ask Eugene its value; she understood she would have no right to Eugene’s listed assets under the Agreement; and she believed Eugene was forthcoming about his assets.
- The trial court held the Agreement valid and enforceable, dismissed Bonnie’s action, and denied the co-executrixes’ request for attorney’s fees.
- Bonnie appealed the enforceability ruling; the defendants sought attorney’s fees on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable because Eugene did not state the value of his 1,687 shares of Routh Packing Company stock, allegedly resulting in inadequate financial disclosure.
2. Whether the defendants, as prevailing parties, were entitled to recover attorney’s fees in the absence of a statute, contract provision, or recognized exception.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment enforcing the antenuptial agreement and dismissing Bonnie’s rescission and declaratory-judgment claims.
- The court held that, on this record, the absence of a stated dollar value for the Routh Packing Company stock did not invalidate the Agreement where the stock was identified by quantity, Bonnie knew it existed, she consulted counsel, and she chose not to seek further valuation information.
- The court affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees, applying the American rule and finding no contractual, statutory, or equitable basis to shift fees.

## Legal Principles

- Antenuptial agreements in Tennessee are enforceable when entered into freely, knowledgeably, and in good faith, without fraud, duress, concealment, or overreaching.
- Adequate disclosure may be shown by identification of the nature and extent of assets and the challenging spouse’s knowledge of the other spouse’s financial condition, including the ability to ask questions and obtain additional information.
- A missing specific valuation for an identified asset does not automatically defeat enforceability when the contesting spouse had independent legal advice, understood the agreement’s effect, and did not request valuation despite awareness of the asset.
- Attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by statute, contract, or a recognized exception to the American rule.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held the antenuptial agreement enforceable because Eugene’s stock was disclosed as an identified asset, Bonnie had independent counsel and understood she was waiving rights to Eugene’s separate property, and the record did not show fraud or concealment; the court also affirmed denial of attorney’s fees because no fee-shifting authority applied.


Reece v. Elliott, 208 S.W.3d 419 (2006)