Caution: a requirement in drafting prenuptial agreements

The question

What if there is ambiguous language or unclear language in a prenuptial agreement? Will the court enforce it?

The answer

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion on a case on May 17, 2011, involving prenuptial agreements and unclear or ambiguous language. In the case, the court was asked to decide how the language of the prenuptial agreement would apply to a condo the couple bought after getting married.

The couple signed the prenup two days before their marriage. Each party was previously married and had children from their previous marriage. They also had assets from their previous lives and marriages. The prenuptial stated that the parties could purchase property in their own name and have title to any property they purchased with their own assets as free separate property of the other party. However, it also contained a paragraph stating that they could also buy joint ownership. The joint property would basically pass to the other spouse by application of the law and would be exempt from the prenuptial agreement.

The problem here was that there was an additional sentence specifically stating that they intended to purchase a condo (the condo in question in the case) and that the condo would be jointly owned by the parties and included language that the condo would pass to the other party. by law enforcement. However, it went on to say that the surviving spouse would retain a life estate in the property after the death of the first spouse to pass away. The life estate reserved for the surviving spouse would allow the surviving spouse to continue living in the condominium until he or she passed away and would then be divided between the two assets of the couple. The prenuptial agreement did not specifically state this intention, rather it used conflicting legal terms.

The problem with this language is that it would not be necessary to reserve a life estate for the surviving spouse if the property, as written, would pass to the other party after the death of the first spouse, because all property would be property. by the surviving spouse. This created an ambiguity in the prenuptial agreement.

The wife passed away first and the husband transferred the condominium to a trust for the benefit of his heirs. When he died, the wife’s children petitioned the husband’s heirs for a fifty percent stake in the condominium, which they refused to grant. The two states then sued each other in probate court.

The Michigan Court of Appeals found this language to be ambiguous, so the trial court should have considered the evidence of the parties’ intent in drafting this agreement. This means that the court determined that this ambiguity would allow the two competing properties to provide evidence from experts and other witnesses as to what they intended to do with this condo, even though they had signed this prenuptial agreement that they should have hoped to resolve. this problem.

From the reading of the prenuptial agreement it is clear that what the parties wanted with the purchase of this particular condominium was that each would keep half as separate property that they could later distribute to their own heirs or it would be sold and half of income distributed to the own heirs of each of the parties.

The person who wrote this agreement should have used more specific language regarding how the parties intended to handle this property. In addition, the writer used incorrect words when referring to the way the property was to be maintained. If not, then there really was no need for this additional language regarding the lifetime estate. It should be noted that the attorney who drafted this prenuptial agreement was the husband’s brother in this case.

The answer is that the court will enforce an ambiguous prenup, but will take testimony and evidence regarding the intent of the parties when they signed the agreement, which to some extent nullifies the reason for the prenup in the first place. The court may decide that the intention was different at the hearing or trial than the parties actually intended, especially in a case like this where there are two competing properties and the original couple is not there to testify. Care must be taken to specifically explain the intent of the parties and to use appropriate language that does not conflict. Lastly, a relative should probably not be used to draft your legal documents.