Prenup Enforcement Success — Marital Estate Protected in Divorce

FAMILY LAW · SONG LAW FIRM SUCCESS STORY

Client Profile

Client A, a Korean-American entrepreneur in their mid-40s residing in New Jersey, founded and operates an IT services company. Before marriage, they already owned this business with an established revenue structure. Prior to the wedding, both spouses entered into a Premarital Agreement. The spouse was also a professional with independent income and assets at the time of marriage, and both parties reviewed the agreement through their own respective independent counsel before signing.

Eight years into the marriage, divorce proceedings began, and the spouse sought to invalidate the premarital agreement altogether, claiming entitlement to half of the company equity that had grown during the marriage. If the prenup were invalidated, the company interest and its post-marital appreciation could be reclassified as marital property subject to equitable distribution — placing approximately 85% of Client A's total estate at risk.

Case Background

The premarital agreement was signed six months before the wedding, following independent legal review by counsel selected separately by each party. The core provisions included:

• Assets held before marriage (company equity, real estate, investment accounts) would remain separate property
• Passive appreciation and passive income generated from those assets post-marriage would also remain separate property
• Only assets jointly acquired during marriage would be treated as marital property subject to division
• Alimony would be addressed based on the marriage's duration and circumstances

The spouse's challenge rested on three grounds: (1) lack of voluntariness due to pressure from the impending wedding (duress), (2) inadequate financial disclosure at execution, and (3) contract terms that were unconscionable. If any single ground succeeded, portions or the entirety of the agreement could be invalidated.

Legal Issues · NJ Statutes

New Jersey's validity analysis for premarital agreements is governed by the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (N.J.S.A. 37:2-31 through 37:2-38). The controlling provision is N.J.S.A. 37:2-38, under which a premarital agreement is unenforceable if the party seeking to avoid it proves:

• The agreement was not signed voluntarily (voluntariness);
• Before signing, that party was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the other party's property and financial obligations, did not voluntarily and expressly waive such disclosure in writing, and did not have (or could not reasonably have) adequate knowledge of the other party's property and financial obligations; or
• The agreement was unconscionable at the time of execution (the 2013 amendment clarified the reference point as execution, not divorce).

Key precedents:

• DeLorean v. DeLorean, 211 N.J. Super. 432 (Ch. Div. 1986): Upheld an agreement signed just days before the wedding without independent counsel, holding that voluntariness turns on substantive understanding rather than mere timing.
• Marschall v. Marschall, 195 N.J. Super. 16 (Ch. Div. 1984): Financial disclosure requires that a party can reasonably ascertain the scope of the other's finances — not necessarily a formal balance sheet.
• N.J.S.A. 37:2-38(c)(3): Whether each party had the opportunity to consult independent counsel is a central factor in the voluntariness inquiry.

Song Law Firm's Strategy

1. Establishing Voluntariness through Documentary Evidence

We compiled all emails, texts, and attorney correspondence from the six-month negotiation period preceding execution. Records showing the spouse's own attorney requesting revisions to specific clauses, multiple draft iterations, and a written acknowledgment by the spouse — witnessed by opposing counsel — confirming voluntary execution formed the core evidentiary base.

2. Proving Adequacy of Financial Disclosure

We presented the original contract exhibits, which included financial statements, company audit reports, bank and brokerage account summaries, and real estate ownership documentation attached at execution. Exhibit A ran to eight detailed pages of asset schedules, and opposing counsel's contemporaneous written confirmation of review was preserved.

3. Rebutting the Unconscionability Claim

Relying on the 2013 amendment to N.J.S.A. 37:2-38, we emphasized that only execution-time unconscionability is cognizable. At signing, the spouse was a professional with substantial income and assets. The alimony clause required payment where the marriage lasted three years or longer — establishing that the agreement was not unilaterally punitive.

4. Rebutting the Duress Claim

Although the spouse alleged wedding-induced pressure, we established that execution occurred six months before the ceremony, providing ample opportunity to withdraw. The spouse's active, voluntary participation in subsequent wedding planning (residential lease, wedding logistics) — without any attempt to revisit the agreement — neutralized the duress theory.

5. Motion for Summary Judgment

Rather than proceed to a full evidentiary hearing, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that no genuine dispute of material fact existed on voluntariness, disclosure, or unconscionability. This strategic move sought early adjudication and avoided protracted trial.

Process and Timeline

• Divorce filing: Early in year eight of marriage; spouse filed complaint together with counterclaim seeking to invalidate the prenup
• Evidence assembly: Approximately four months compiling correspondence, financial disclosures, and independent counsel affidavits
• Motion for Summary Judgment filed: About six months after case initiation
• Oral argument: Approximately two months later
• Court ruling: Motion granted; prenup deemed fully enforceable
• Final divorce judgment: Marital estate divided consistent with the prenup — pre-marital assets remained separate, only jointly acquired marital assets divided

Total elapsed time: approximately 10 months (compared to typical 2–3 year contested asset divorces)

Result

The prenup was upheld in its entirety, securing the following outcomes:

• 100% protection of pre-marital company equity (both the underlying interest and passive appreciation during marriage)
• Pre-marital real estate and investment accounts retained as separate property
• Alimony calculated pursuant to prenup terms and New Jersey alimony standards, factoring the eight-year marriage duration
• Only jointly acquired marital assets (marital home, joint accounts) divided under standard equitable distribution
• Approximately 85% of Client A's total estate fully preserved

Lessons Learned

• A premarital agreement is not automatically valid simply because it was signed. Its enforceability depends on voluntariness, adequacy of financial disclosure, and fairness at execution — all three prongs must withstand challenge.
• A six-plus-month window between execution and marriage, separate independent counsel for each party, and detailed asset exhibits are foundational to preempting duress and disclosure attacks.
• Following the 2013 amendment to N.J.S.A. 37:2-38, unconscionability is measured only at execution — post-marriage changes in wealth or income asymmetry do not, standing alone, undo an otherwise valid agreement.
• Where substantial pre-marital assets exist (business ownership, inheritance, family-held equity), a properly executed and documented premarital agreement is essential; the execution procedure itself becomes the evidentiary backbone of any later defense.
• When a divorce case involves a threshold prenup challenge, an early Motion for Summary Judgment can dramatically reduce time, cost, and emotional burden by resolving enforceability before contested asset discovery even begins.