Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In the past, we’ve spent a bit of time on the subject of prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. As we’ve pointed out, prenuptial agreements are contracts which predetermine certain outcomes in the possible event of a divorce. When couples divorce, they often end up engaging in disputes over property, alimony, and other things; prenuptial agreements can eliminate the possibility of disputes from arising and, in the process, prevent a considerable amount of headache and stress. When it comes to enforcing prenuptial agreements, Maryland abides rules which are common to most other states throughout the country. These are known as the UPMAA rules (formerly known as the UPAA rules). However, in addition to these preestablished rules, Maryland also treats prenuptial agreements in much the same way it does other contractual agreements. This means, for instance, that the agreements should satisfy the same basic elements as other contractual agreements.

In the case of Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), the issue of unconscionability came up as it applies to the enforcement of another wise valid agreement. Let’s look at the details of this important case.

Overview of Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023)

The couple in this case signed a prenuptial agreement back in 1992. At the time the contract was signed, the wife’s attorney cautioned her against signing, but she signed anyway. The contract itself was drafted by the husband’s attorney. The prenuptial agreement held that the couple would not split income or assets upon divorce, and that neither party would receive alimony; furthermore, any real property acquired during the marriage would be held as tenants in common with no rights of survivorship. When the couple eventually divorced in 2019, the husband sought to enforce the agreement. The wife attempted to block enforcement, and the wife was successful at both the trial and appellate court levels.

Outcome & Significance

The reason for the husband’s failure can be explained by the practical impact of the prenuptial agreement. During the marriage, the couple acquired homes in Florida and Massachusetts; however, both of those homes were titled in such a way that the wife would not acquire either of them upon divorce. The court determined that the prenuptial agreement was fair and reasonable at the time of execution, but unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Ordinarily, Maryland law is only concerned with the time of execution when conducting an unconscionability analysis. But, in this case, Massachusetts law was applied because the case arose in the State of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts law, the unconscionability analysis applies at the time of enforcement, not just the time of execution. Consequently, after conducting the analysis at the time of enforcement, the trial and appellate courts determined that enforcing the agreement would be unconscionable given its impact on the wife’s finances. The wife would be stripped of too much property, leaving the husband with a veritable windfall. Because of this state of affairs, the court overturned the agreement and ruled in favor of the wife.

This case speaks volumes about the importance of hiring a skilled attorney to handle your case. In this situation, the parties needed to have attorneys who were familiar with Massachusetts family law in addition to Maryland family law.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like more information on adverse possession, or another matter, contact one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.