Preview:

Cann on v. C annon , No. 48, Sept. Term 2004. Opinion by Harrell, J. FAMILY LAW - DIVORCE - EVALUATING VALIDITY OF ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS - CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP AS MATTER OF LAW A confidential relationship exists as a matter of law between the parties to an antenuptial agreement where marriage is the consideration for the agreem ent. Becau se of this confidential relationship, the burden of proof to establish the validity of the antenuptial agreement in litigation wh ere the agre ement is at issue lies upon the party seeking to enforce the agreement. A party seeking to enforce an antenuptial agreement ultimately must prove that an overreaching d id not occur, such that there was no unfairness or inequity to the other party at the time the agreeme nt was en tered. T he agreem ent in the pre sent case w as valid because the wife had adequate pre-disclosure and knowle dge of the financial an d property items at issue, knew the effect of her waiver(s), and entered voluntarily the agreeme nt, although without the advice of legal counsel. Thus, execution of the agreement was not an exercise in overreaching.

Circuit Co urt for Frede rick Coun ty Case # 10-C-02-001642 DA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 48 September Term, 2004

WENDY J. CANNON v. JOHN A. CANNON

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J.

Filed: January 12, 2005

We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to re-examine the proper analysis of challenges to antenuptial agreements in Maryland law and the role, if any, in that analysis of an asserted confidential relationship between the parties to such agreements. As to the latter, we maintain tha t a confidential relationship exists, as a matter of law, between the parties at the formation of the antenuptial agreement, consistent with Levy v. Sherman, 185 Md. 63, 43 A.2d 25 (1945 ), Hartz v. H artz , 248 Md. 47, 234 A.2d 865 (1967), and Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552, 471 A.2d 705 (19 84). The present case began in 1992 when Wendy Santilhano (hereinafter referred to as Mrs. Cannon) and John Cannon became engaged to be married. The parties thereafter signed, and had notarized, an antenuptial agreement (the Agreement) prior to the wedding. The Agreement stated that each would retain sole title to any property acq uired in their individual capacities prior to the marriage (includ ing Mr. C annon's h ome), rem ain solely liable for any debt individually incurred prior to and during the m arriage, and mutually waived alimony and marital property rights. The parties married on 25 June 1994. In 2001, the parties separated. Mrs. Cannon, and her children from a previous marriage, moved out of Mr. Cannon's home. Mrs. Cannon filed for an absolute div orce in the Circuit Court for Frederick County in July of 2002, alleging, among other things, that the Agreement was invalid and that she was entitled to alimony and an equitable share of the marital property. After a hearing, the Circuit Court concluded, as explained in an oral opinion rendered on 26 March 2003, that the Agreement was invalid. A critical factor in the trial court's reasoning was its finding that the parties expressed an oral intent to enter the antenuptial agreement principally to protect Mr. Cannon's assets and finances from

undefined spillover consequences flowing from a bankruptcy proceeding initiated by Mrs. Cannon prior to their marriage. The trial court apparently was of the mind that the existence of a confide ntial relationship between the parties justified Mrs. Canno n's reliance o n this intent in entering the Agreem ent, but did not serve as a perm anent waiver of h er asserted marital rights. The Agreem ent, accordin g to the trial judg e, was bu t a tempora ry measure to protect Mr. Cannon from her creditors

Download Cannon v. Cannon.pdf

Maryland Law