Contracts

Brief

Simeone v. Simeone

Procedural History:

• The master upheld the prenuptial agreement.
• Appealed.
• Affirmed.
• Appealed to the Supreme Court
• Affirmed.

Facts:

• Walsh was a 23 year old unemployed nurse when she was engaged to Simeone in 1975.
• On the eve of their wedding, she was approached by an attorney of Simeone with a prenuptial agreement.
• The agreement limited Walsh in the event of separation or divorce to a maximum total payment of $25,000.
• Without counsel and without an explanation regarding the legal rights, Walsh signed.
• The parties separated in 1982 and Walsh filed a claim for alimony.
• Simeone denied saying he had paid her $25,000 between 1982 and 1984 which would satisfy the prenuptial.

Issue:

• Is the prenuptial valid?

Holding:

• Yes. Affirmed.

Reasoning:

• In Geyer, a prenuptial agreement is valid if it either made a reasonable provision for the spouse or was entered after a full and fair disclosure of the general financial positions of the parties and the statutory rights being relinquished.
  • This is no longer valid however.
  • These decisions rested upon a belief that spouses are of unequal status and that women are not knowledgeable enough to understand the nature of contracts that they enter.
• Traditional principles of contract law provide perfectly adequate remedies where contracts are procured through fraud, misrepresentation, or duress.
• A Prenuptial agreement is a contract and as such should be evaluated under the same criteria.
• The court feels the terms of the current prenuptial should be binding.
• There was no present duress or misrepresentation and the fact Walsh did not seek counsel is not a defense.