Gross v. Gross

Facts

H was thirty-two years of age and had previously been married. H had two sons by his prior marriage. H is part owner of a number of Pepsi-Cola bottling company franchises. W was twenty-seven years of age and had two children from a previous marriage. W was divorced from her former husband in 1964 and went to work shortly thereafter at the Columbus Pepsi-Cola bottling company as secretary for the marketing manager. Marriage was discussed, and H had his attorney draw an agreement and submit it W and her legal counsel. A number of changes were made in the initial provisions of the instrument occasioned by the advice of W's counsel at that time. W's counsel advised her not to sign the final draft, but W opted to sign the agreement. The contract was executed by the parties on September 4, 1968. In the event of a separation or divorce W was entitled to receive as alimony or separate maintenance the maximum sum of $200.00 per month for a period of 10 years, from the time of such separation (either by legal action or by actually living apart) or from the date of a divorce action being filed, if a court of competent jurisdiction will award W any alimony. This was to be the maximum amount W would be entitled to receive under any and all circumstances and conditions. It also held that W shall not be entitled to any division of the property of H nor to any expense money or counsel fees in connection with any separation or divorce, and W agreed to waive any and all such rights or claims. W was entitled to 1/2 the equity of a marital home and an automobile and all personal items in the home except H's clothes and sports equipment. Payments from H to W would also establish a trust in the principal sum of $200,000, or twenty percent of H's net estate, whichever was lesser. The income derived from the trust was to be paid to W for life and upon her death to provide education for her children by her previous marriage. The value of H's assets at the time was listed in the proximity of $ 550,000. W disclosed assets of household goods and effects, an automobile, and $1,000 cash for what is alleged to be a total of approximately $5,000. A son was born of the marriage in 1970. The marriage lasted fourteen years when H filed for divorce. That action was dismissed, and W filed. A divorce was granted on grounds of extreme cruelty. H had increased his total assets to some $8,000,000 with a net equity of $6,000,000. His gross income for the year 1980 was approximately $250,000. The trial court found the antenuptial agreement to be valid and enforceable in that it had been fairly entered into since there was no evidence of fraud, duress, or misrepresentation, and there had been a full disclosure of assets. The court entered an order in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The court of appeals, held that H had been guilty of gross neglect of duty and had thereby breached the antenuptial agreement and could not enforce its provisions against W. H appealed the decision.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.