Prenup Agreements: Disclose, Disclose

Interesting facts in this Georgia case, Baldwin couple’s prenup dispute to go before court and one I suppose could be duplicated here in Indiana

Angela Lawrence is appealing the decision of a trial court that ruled the prenuptial agreement she and her husband, G. Lawson Lawrence, entered into in February 2005 was valid and enforceable.

Her attorney, Martin Fierman, of Eatonton, argues that the prenuptial agreement is not binding because only one witness signed the agreement and because Lawson Lawrence did not fully disclose his income and assets.

Under state law, any contract “made in contemplation of marriage” must be verified by at least two witnesses in order to be valid.

But the husband’s attorney, Kice Stone, argues that the agreement was not “made in contemplation of marriage,” but, rather, “in contemplation of divorce” and that it therefore did not need two witnesses.

Angela Lawrence’s attorney also contends that Angela Lawrence was never fully informed of her husband’s assets before signing the agreement, which further invalidates the contract under the law.

Lawson Lawrence’s attorney says in the paperwork that the claim is irrelevant, because Angela Lawrence freely signed the agreement and lived with him two years before they wed, long enough to have full knowledge of his income level. She was advised to have an attorney review the agreement prior to signing it, but she declined to do so.

The better practice - what is in my subject line. Nothing hurt by making a full disclosure and lot saved in fees for trial and appeals.