Are prenuptial agreements recognized in Rhode Island?

Answer 1

Yes, Prenuptial agreements are recognized in Rhode Island(RI). It is extremely difficult in Rhode Island to invalidate a premarital agreement. You should consult a Rhode Island (RI) Divorce and Family law Lawyer to draft a prenuptial agreement. Rhode Island General Law 15-17-6 and Marsocci v Marsocci, 911 A.2d 690 (R.I. 2006) create a heavy burden on a person seeking to invalidate a prenuptial agreement in Rhode Island. In Marsocci the Court stated "In Rhode Island, the enforceability of a premarital agreement is governed by the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act as codified in § 15-17-6. Section 15-17-6 states: (a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:

(1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; and

(2) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:

(i) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(ii) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and

(iii) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.

(b) The burden of proof as to each of the elements required in order to have a premarital agreement held to be unenforceable shall be on the party seeking to have the agreement declared unenforceable and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

(c) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates spousal support and that modification or elimination causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public assistance at the time of separation or marital dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility.

(d) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law."

The seminal case in Rhode Island concerning prenuptial agreements is Marsocci v. Marsocci, 911 A.2d 690 (RI 2006) In Marsocci, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reasoned "We have noted that when the Legislature enacted the provisions of § 15-17-6, it clearly evidenced the intent to preserve the validity of such agreements [and] * * * [maintain] the integrity of such agreements." Id. at 696. Citing Penhallow v. Penhallow, 649 A.2d 1016, 1021 (R.I. 1994). The Marsocci Court further opined "To that end, the Legislature placed a significant burden upon the party seeking to render the agreement unenforceable - that party must prove all of the elements in §§ 15-17-6(a)(1) and (2), and must do so by clear and convincing evidence."(emphasis added) Id. at 696, Quoting Rubino v. Rubino, 765 A.2d 1222, 1225 (R.I. 2001). "We are satisfied that § 15-17-6(b) unambiguously provides that: '[t]he burden of proof as to each of the elements required in order to have a premarital agreement held to be unenforceable shall be on the party seeking to have the agreement declared unenforceable' * * *. (Emphasis added.)" Id. In Marsocci, the husband David and the wife Debra were married on August 26, 1995. Marsocci at 692. The parties signed a prenuptial agreement four days prior to the wedding Id. at 692. Both parties signed the agreement, and it was witnessed. Id. "The trial justice found that each asset David Listed was unaccompanied by a dollar value; nor was there a written waiver of Debra's right to disclosure of the value of her husband's property and his financial obligations." Id. at 694. In Marsocci, the trial judge stated "There is no information contained in this agreement as to the values of any of Mr. Marsocci's assets." Id. The trial judge found that Debra " has nothing and agrees to end up with nothing after her marriage..." Id. The husband, David, was represented by counsel and the wife Debra did not have an attorney representing her. Id. at 692. The Court upheld the validity of the prenuptial agreement holding that Debra did not prove all of the elements of the Premarital Agreement Act by clear and convincing evidence. In Marsocci, the court referring to the uniform premarital agreement act held that "The UPAA does not require that the assets and financial obligations of the parties be set forth in the agreement. Rather, a party's failure to provide a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations to the other party is a factor that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence to defeat the agreement." Id. In Marsocci, The Court held that "the act does not require the presence of independent counsel as a condition for * * * enforceability[;]" Penhallow, 649 A.2d at 1022, nor has this Court ever required parties to a premarital agreement to be represented by counsel.