Reece v. Elliott

Facts

P was the surviving widow of Eugene Reece. They had married in December 1999, and Reece died intestate on July 5, 2003. P applied for statutory benefits as surviving widow and attached a copy of the antenuptial agreement dated November 29, 1999. She sought a declaration regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties, and a rescission of the document based upon Eugene’s failure to make a full disclosure regarding his assets and financial condition. Elliott's (D) answer relied on the antenuptial agreement, and the defenses of estoppel, laches, release, and waiver. P testified that she consulted with an attorney who read over the document and that the list of her property was prepared by her to be typed up and attached to the agreement. P testified that she understood the agreement and went over the appropriate list with her attorney and did not have any questions. P signed the agreement in the attorney’s office, and the attorney’s staff notarized her signature. P testified that she was not aware of any items of property that Eugene failed to disclose and that it did not matter if Eugene owned 87 shares of stock or 1,687 shares, they were his. P said she did not know what she would have done if she had known the stock was worth a lot of money. P acknowledged that she did not discuss with her attorney the need to find out what the stock was worth, and that she did not know what the stock was worth in 1999. P acknowledged that she did not ask Eugene what the stock was worth because it was not important to her at the time because he was going to keep it anyway. The court held the agreement enforceable. In the Court’s opinion, the lack of value stated on the stock was not fatal to the agreement. The Court found that the law required each party to have a clear idea of the nature and extent of the other’s assets, which the Court found to be the case. This appeal resulted. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.