The 3 D’s of Prenuptial Agreements

Delusion, Distress, Duress. There can be none of those when signing a prenup.  Once you and your future spouse decide to work with NYC Prenup, you are choosing a team effort of reviewing your financial information openly, together. 

This eliminates the concern for the dreaded 3 D’s of Delusion, Distress and Duress, for the most part. You will complete financial schedules to disclose each of your assets and debts. You will acknowledge that you are signing in a timely manner and that these are your desires. Very rarely is a properly drafted prenuptial agreement not considered by the court.  New York courts have consistently enforced prenups that are not tainted by delusion, duress, or distress.

Then, someday, if the prenuptial agreement is reviewed by a judge, they will look at all the circumstances surrounding the terms and agreements reached. Choosing NYC Prenup does help the judge uphold the agreement to the letter that you and your soon to be spouse have drawn up since it shows that you have made these financial decisions in good faith, together.

The cases below may be of interest:

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 25 N.Y.S. 3d 90, 138 A.D.3d 30 (2016):

Court upheld a prenuptial agreement as valid and enforceable even though one party was keeping much more assets than the other party.   The Court declined to undo the agreement because one party now regretted the choice to not ask for more in the parties prenuptial agreement.

Gutherz v. Gutherz, 992 N.Y.S.2d 158 (2014):

Court found that the party trying to throw out the prenup failed meet the burden of proof to invalidate a prenuptial agreement. Court found that “an alleged failure to disclose assets does not, standing alone, constitute fraud or overreaching sufficient to vitiate an agreement, particularly in the absence of evidence of an attempt to conceal or misrepresent the nature or extent of the assets.”

A.N. v. E.N., 960 N.Y.S.2d 48 (2012):

Court set aside a prenuptial agreement on the grounds of it being unconscionable, overreaching and duress during the execution of the agreement where one spouse had no input in negotiating the terms and the agreement was entirely one-sided. In this case, the terms of the agreement the one spouse actually signed were very different from the actual terms of the agreement.

E.C.-P. v. P.P., 946 N.Y.S.2d 66 (2011):

Court threw out the prenuptial agreement where the signing of the prenup was fraudulently induced with promises that the party asking for the prenup would tear up the agreement after they had a child, but then failed to follow thru on that promise.  The case demonstrates the importance of a properly drafted and executed prenuptial agreement.