Biliouris v. Biliouris

Facts

H was a physician, thirty-one years of age and W, a home economics teacher, was thirty-five years of age. W had three children by an earlier marriage. W learned that she was pregnant and shortly thereafter informed the H of the pregnancy. H told W that he would not marry her unless she signed an antenuptial agreement (agreement). H's attorney prepared an agreement that H presented to W. W sought the assistance of counsel who, upon review of the draft agreement, advised W not to sign it. W met H and his attorney to discuss the agreement and immediately thereafter went to a bank where, in the presence of a notary, the parties executed the agreement. On the same date, the parties also signed the exhibits pages listing the parties' assets that were attached to the agreement. The antenuptial agreement provides generally that the individual property of each party, as well as the appreciation thereon, shall remain the party's sole and exclusive property, and that neither party shall have a claim to alimony from the other. During their ten-year marriage, the parties had two children. W was a 'stay-at-home' mother and was the 'primary caretaker of the home' while H ran his medical practice. In 1995, the parties sold their home in Sandwich 5 and built a new home, title to which they held as tenants by the entirety, in West Barnstable. The cost of the West Barnstable home (excluding the land) was either $500,000 or $600,000. H paid the mortgage on the home (granted in 1999) as well as other extraordinary expenses. At the time of the divorce, the West Barnstable house was worth $1,075,000 and carried a mortgage of $86,000. During the marriage, the parties enjoyed an upper-middle-class standard of living. H filed a complaint for divorce. The judge found that the antenuptial agreement was free from fraud, both parties having fully disclosed their assets at the time of execution, and neither party having unfairly taken 'advantage of the confidential and emotional relationship that the party had with the other.' The judge further found that the parties had adequate opportunity to consult with independent counsel prior to signing the agreement, that the agreement indicated what rights the parties were giving up, that the wife (who had been through a prior divorce) would be aware of what rights she might have had absent the existence of an agreement, and that there had been 'an adequate waiver.' The judge found 'that the W did not suffer from any duress and was not coerced into signing the agreement at the time of' its execution. Finally, the judge determined that the agreement was fair and reasonable at the time of its execution and was 'not an unconscionable agreement' at the time of its enforcement. The judge concluded that the agreement was a binding contract and that there were no countervailing equities that would invalidate it. The judge awarded W eighty percent of the equity in the West Barnstable home (based on the wife's 'contribution' or payment of eighty percent of the household's operating expenses) and most of the contents of the home. W appealed. W argues that she was under duress at the time she executed the antenuptial agreement and 'was coerced into signing it due to the circumstances in which she found herself.'

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.