Premarital Agreement Possibly Void Because Unconscionable

The Virginia Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court's decision to strike a wife's evidence that a premarital agreement was void because it was unconscionable.  In Chaplain v. Chaplain, the wife contended a premarital agreement was void because she did not understand the terms of the agreement.  The prenuptial agreement at issue gave the wife nothing, except the right to $100,000 if she were married to husband when husband died.  However, the husband was allegedly worth 20 million dollars.   The wife was born in Morocco and claimed she spoke little english when she signed the premarital agreement in 1997.  She further claimed that she did not understand the agreement and that she was not provided with a copy of the prenuptial agreement either before or after she signed it.  Further, the husband represented that he was a "poor man." 

The trial court found that wife failed to make a prima facie case, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further evidence to be taken.  The Court noted that there "ample evidence" of a gross disparity in the division of assets, and overreaching to support a finding of unconscionability.

The decision appears to be significant in 2 ways.  First, perhaps arguments of unconscionability may hold sway in future cases.  Generally, unconscionability arguments fail, but in this case at least, it was successful, and perhaps courts will be more willing to accept such arguments in the future.  Second, it shows the appellate court's disapproval of striking evidence prematurely.