## Facts

- Victoria (“Vicky”) Sogg and Paul B. Sogg began dating in 1987; Paul was approximately 87 and worth about $20 million, and Vicky was approximately 55 and in financial distress after losing a large investment.
- Vicky knew Paul was wealthy but was not told his net worth and did not receive a meaningful written disclosure of his assets.
- The day before an April 1987 wedding, Paul took Vicky to his lawyer to sign a premarital agreement; she was urged to consult another lawyer located by Paul’s attorney, but the consultation was brief and interrupted, and Vicky refused to sign; the wedding was called off.
- After reconciliation, on the day of the rescheduled wedding, Vicky signed a premarital agreement shortly before the ceremony under substantial time pressure and without a meaningful opportunity to review the document or obtain independent advice.
- The agreement substantially limited Vicky’s rights in Paul’s property and estate.
- About eight months into the marriage, Paul filed for divorce; disputes also arose over whether various transfers from Paul to Vicky were gifts or loans/conditional transfers.
- After Paul’s death, Nevada State Bank, as executor, litigated enforcement of the premarital agreement and related property disputes against Vicky.

## Issues

1. Whether the premarital agreement was enforceable given the disparity in wealth, the extent of disclosure of Paul’s assets, and the circumstances of execution.
2. Whether the agreement was presumptively fraudulent or unconscionable due to nondisclosure, lack of meaningful independent counsel, and last-minute pressure.
3. Whether the district court correctly treated certain transfers from Paul to Vicky as non-gifts (loans or property for use only).

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded.
- The court held the premarital agreement was not enforceable under the circumstances presented, because the agreement was presumptively fraudulent/tainted by overreaching and the estate failed to establish informed, voluntary assent with fair disclosure.
- The court directed further proceedings consistent with its standards for evaluating premarital agreements and the related disputed transfers.

## Legal Principles

- Premarital agreements that are substantially one-sided and executed where there is a marked disparity in wealth and sophistication are subject to a presumption of fraud or overreaching.
- The proponent of such an agreement bears the burden to show it was made in good faith, freely, and with full knowledge of the other party’s property and the rights being waived.
- General awareness that a fiancé is “wealthy” is insufficient; enforceability requires full and fair disclosure of the nature and extent of assets (or proof of actual, informed knowledge).
- Voluntariness requires a meaningful opportunity to review terms and obtain independent legal advice; execution on the eve of or day of the wedding under emotional/time pressure weighs against enforceability.
- Even apart from procedure, grossly disproportionate terms may support nonenforcement when coupled with inequality in bargaining power and knowledge.
- Alleged inter vivos gifts require donative intent, delivery, and acceptance; courts should evaluate surrounding circumstances and evidence rather than reflexively labeling transfers as loans.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a sharply imbalanced premarital agreement where the wealthier spouse did not provide fair asset disclosure and the agreement was signed under last-minute pressure without meaningful independent review, and it remanded for reconsideration of the parties’ property and transfer disputes under the correct standards.


Sogg v. Nevada State Bank, 108 Nev. 308, 832 P.2d 781 (Nev. 1992)