WPC ] YWk-Ufd u( 530ڟ vw[/0/{=pl+ nu.6C:vJMG60bxQH!!J?V9m @2)L]Q:uk|U6ڋ32f3<)7X\ewrd;N_r"tV^1m%X? Y,8gy'Qgq\b#\ % U@# 0c U N N9 z; z /  UN UF! ^ g s 9Nc 0DewE4 mb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASJ 0c 0D AKHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularuP-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  Rk$      1  %  _ԀTheCaryv.Carydecisiondoesaddonemorerequirementfortheenforcementofalimonyprovisionsina  prenuptialagreement:thatitnotdepriveonespouseofsupportthatheorshecannototherwiseobtain,resultinginthat t spousebecomingapubliccharge.XAX%(#$  0  ,-3|xU- -(|G2k$ !.8GdXXd8         0  % d(|3i$ !.8GdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3i$ !.8GdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Gdd8     _  G8AXXdd8  GG@ GINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#G+#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsMay14,2002 L XAXG #GXXA#CAROLL._SOLOMAN_v._KLEBBER_Ԁ_DUNKLIN_Ԁ_MURREY_XAXG  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.99D403DonaldP.Harris,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200100806_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober16,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Beforetheirmarriage,thepartiessignedaprenuptialagreement,whichamongotherthings,declared x  theirintentionto equallydivideanyandalllivingexpenses.Whentheydivorced,thetrialcourt d enforcedtheagreement,andorderedthehusbandtoreimbursethewifeforherfargreater P contributiontosuchexpensesduringthecourseofthemarriage.Thehusbandarguesonappealthat < thelivingexpensesprovisionshouldnothavebeenenforced,becauseitiscontrarytopublicpolicy. (x Weaffirmthetrialcourt.#GXXA#XAXG d Y    @ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt < AffirmedandRemanded  (   #GXA#XAX.GBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr.  andWilliamB.Cain,JJ.,joined.  ThomasJayNorman,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Klebber_Ԁ_Dunklin_Ԁ_Murrey_. t D.ScottParsley,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CarolL._Soloman_. L   OPINION #GXXA% #XAXG $"t! #GXA #  XAXG X0b XXXA   `    @cc#XAX X X0b # XAXXXA I.AnAntenuptialAgreement  #L#   CarolL._Soloman_Ԁand_Klebber_Ԁ_Dunklin_Ԁ_Murrey_ԀenteredintoanAntenuptialAgreementon %$!% March22,1991,andmarriedinApril.Theagreementrecitesthepartiesintentionstoprotectthe &"& interestthateachhadinseparateproperty,fortheirownbenefitandthatoftheirchildrenfromprior '"' marriages. (#(   Oneclauseprovidesthatintheeventofseparationordivorce,allitemsofproperty(whether p*%* real,personalormixed)titledintheirseparatenameswillberetainedbythetitleholder,andthat \+&+ anyappreciationinthevalueofsuchpropertywilllikewisebelongtothepartyhavingtitle.Another H,', clausedeclaresthatpropertyacquiredduringthemarriageandtitledintheirjointnameswillbe 4-(- dividedequally.Stillanotherdeclaresthattheindividualprovisionsoftheagreementareseparable,  andthatifanyprovisionshouldbeheldtobeinvalid,unenforceableorvoid,theremaining  provisionswillnotbeaffected.    Anattachmenttotheagreement,executedonthesameday,containsadditionalprovisions. ` Oneprovidesthatthepartieswillresideatthe_homeplace_Ԁofthewife,locatedat521_Skyview_ԀDrive L  inNashville.However,ifthatpropertyissold,andthefundsinvestedinanew_homeplace_,the 8  agreementstatesthatthenewpropertywillbejointlyowned,inproportiontothecontributioneach $ t partymakestoit.Afurtherprovisionreadsasfollows:  ` @``# LIVINGEXPENSES   8   ` Thepartiesagreetoequallydivideanyandalllivingexpenses,includingbut   notlimitedtoallutilitiesandrepairs.   Ѐ ` Whilethepartiesareresidingtogetherat521_Skyview_ԀDrive,Nashville,   Tennesseethewifeshallpaythemortgagepaymentsonsaid_homeplace_.   @"" II.DivorceandEnforcement  \     Thepartiesdidnotstayat_Skyview_ԀDrive,butbuiltanewhomeon_Lickton_ԀPike.Afterabout 4 eightyearsofmarriage,theyseparated,andMs._Soloman_Ԁsuedfordivorce.OnSeptember1,1999,  p thetrialcourtgrantedthepartiesadivorceonstipulatedgrounds.SeeTenn.Code.Ann.364129.  \ Thecourtreservedtheissuesregardingthedivisionofmaritalpropertyforalaterdate. H   Duringthelaterhearing,thecourthearddetailedtestimonyastothepropertyoftheparties,   andtheirpersonalfinances.Thecouplehadjointlyacquiredfourpiecesofrealpropertyduringtheir   marriage:themaritalhomeon_Lickton_ԀPike,abeachhouseinFlorida,anofficebuildingin_Gallatin_,  andalotonSt.GeorgeIsland,Florida.ThemaritalhomewastitledinMs._Soloman_snamealone.  Theotherpropertiesweretitledinboththeirnames.    Ms._Soloman_Ԁproduceddetailedfinancialrecords,andtestifiedthatherhusbandmadealmost X  nocontributiontotheacquisitionofanyoftheseproperties,ortothepartieslivingexpenses,while D! shepaidforvirtuallyallthefood,theutilitybills,extensiverepairbills,ahousekeeper,insurance 0"  premiumsandvehicleexpenses,aswellasforMr._Murrey_sboatandairplane,whichhelatersold, #l! pocketingtheproceeds.Mr._Murrey_Ԁdisputedhiswifestestimony,andclaimedthathemadea $X" substantialcontributionoflabortotheimprovementofthemaritalproperty,andregular $D # contributionstothelivingexpenses. %0!$   InitsorderofMarch5,2001,thetrialcourtstatedthatitinterpretedthejointlyacquired '#& propertyprovisionoftheantenuptialagreementtoapplywithoutregardtotherespective (#' contributionsoftheparties.Thecourtaccordinglymadeanequaldivisionofthe$187,000equity )$( inthebeachhouse,officebuildingandislandlot.Theagreementprovided,however,thatthemarital |*%) homewastobedividedaccordingtothecontributionoftheparties.Onthebasisoftheevidence, h+&* thecourtfoundthat75%ofthe$39,000equityinthe_Lickton_ԀPikehomeshouldgotothewife,and  25%tothehusband.    ThecourtalsofoundthatMs._Soloman_Ԁhadpaid$130,313.76indocumentedlivingexpenses t andhomerepairsduringthecourseofthemarriage,whileMr._Murrey_Ԁhadpaid$5,042.Thecourt ` notedthatbothparties ownedseparaterealpropertiesatthetimeoftheirmarriageandacquired L  otherssubsequentthereto,andreasonedthatfailuretoenforcethelivingexpensesagreementwould 8  resultininequity.Thecourtobservedthatthepartythatdidnotpayhissharewouldbeabletouse $ t themoneytoinvestinseparateproperty,andthustakeunfairadvantageoftheprovisionofthe  ` agreementthatallowseachpartytoretainthepropertyheldinhisownname.Thecourtaccordingly  L  orderedthehusbandtoreimbursethewife$62,635fromhisshareofthemaritalestate,representing  8  halfofthedifferencebetweenhercontributiontothelivingexpensesandhis.Thisappealfollowed. $  @{{ III.TheAntenuptialStatute      Thesoleissueonappealiswhetherthelivingexpensesprovisionintheantenuptial   agreementmaybeenforced.Theappellantarguesthatitshouldbeheldvoidandunenforceable,in p partbecauseTenn.Code.Ann.363501,whichprovidesfortheenforcementofantenuptial \ agreementsinTennessee,refersspecificallyonlytotheseparatepropertyofthepartiespriorto H marriage.Thatstatutereadsinpertinentpart, 4      ...anyantenuptialorprenuptialagreemententeredintobyspousesconcerning  \ propertyownedbyeitherspousebeforethemarriagewhichisthesubjectofsuch H agreementshallbebindinguponanycourthavingjurisdictionoversuchspouses 4 and/orsuchagreementifsuchagreementisdetermined,inthediscretionofsuch   court,tohavebeenenteredintobysuchspousesfreely,knowledgeablyandingood   faithandwithoutexertionofduressorundueinfluenceuponeitherspouse.The  termsofsuchagreementshallbeenforceablebyallremediesavailablefor  enforcementofcontractterms.[1980Pub.Acts,ch.492,1].    Mr._Murrey_Ԁimpliesthatbyenforcingthedisputedprovision,wetherebytransformliving X  expensesintoanelementofmaritalproperty,andintroduceachaoticnewelementintodomestic D! relationslaw.Heasksrhetorically, 0"   ...isthepaymentoflivingexpensesnowafactortobeconsideredbythetrial $X" courtsofthisstateindeterminingadivisionofmaritalproperty?Doeseverydivorce $D # inthisstatehereaftercontainaninquiryintothetotalexpendituresofeachspouse %0!$ throughoutthecourseofthemarriage?Domarriageshereaftercontainanelement &"% ofaccountingforeachpennyspentbyeachspouseduringthemarriageinpreparation '#& forapossiblefuturedivorce? (#'   )$(   Withallduerespecttotheappellant,wedonotbelievethattheenforcementoftheclauseat  issuewouldchangelivingexpensesintoaspeciesofmaritalpropertysubjecttodivision,inthe  absenceofa_prenuptial_Ԁagreementsoproviding.     WealsofinditinstructivethateventhoughalimonyisnotmentionedinTenn.Code.Ann. ` 363501,ourSupremeCourthasdeclaredagreementswaivingorlimitingalimonytobe L  enforceable, solongastheantenuptialagreementwasenteredintofreelyandknowledgeably,with 8  adequatedisclosure,andwithoutundueinfluenceoroverreaching....Caryv.Cary,937S.W.2d $ t 777,782(Tenn.1996). #  1      ׀Itthusappearstousthatthesubjectmatterofprenuptialagreementsisnot  ` limitedtothedispositionofpropertyownedbythepartiesbeforetheirmarriage,andthatthe  L  inclusionofquestionsofsupportintosuchagreementsdoesnotleadtoachangeinthestatutory  8  definitionsofmaritalandseparateproperty.SeeTenn.Code.Ann.364121(b)(1). $    @  IV.PublicPolicyConsiderations      Theappellantcontendsthatenforcementofthelivingexpensesprovisionwouldbein   violationoftheclearlyenunciatedpublicpolicyinterestinprotectingtheinstitutionofmarriage.See p _Thomasson_Ԁv._Thomasson_,755S.W.2d779(Tenn.1988);Farrarv.Farrar,553S.W.2d741,744 \ (Tenn.1977).Hearguesthattoholdeachpartyaccountabletotheotherforexpendituresmade H duringthecourseforthemarriagewouldbedestructivetotheinstitution.Wedonotagree. 4   Perhapshisargumentwouldbevalidifreimbursementforlivingexpensesbecameageneral  \ ruletobefollowedwheneverpropertywasdividedfollowingdivorce,forwecaneasilyimagine H situationswheresucharulecouldleadtoabsurdresultsorworkseverehardshipsontheparties.But 4 Ms._Soloman_Ԁisnotaskingforaradicalchangeinthelawofdomesticrelations.Sheismerely   askingthecourttoenforcethetermsofanagreementtowhichbothpartiesfreelyassented.     TheStateofTennesseenowrecognizesthevalidityofantenuptialagreements,andallows  themtobeinterpretedandenforcedlikeanyothercontracts.Minorv.Minor,863S.W.2d51(Tenn.  Ct.App.1993);Kahnv.Kahn,756S.W.2d685(Tenn.1988).Becauseoftheconfidentialnature l ofthemarriagerelationship,however,thecourtsmustcloselyexaminethecircumstancesoftheir X  formation,tomakesuretheyhavebeenenteredintofreely,knowledgeablyandingoodfaith,without D! duressorundueinfluence.Randolphv.Randolph,937S.W.2d815(Tenn.1996);Wilsonv.Moore, 0"  929S.W.2d367(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). #l!   Inthepresentcase,thereisnosuggestionofcompulsion,deceptionoroverreachinginthe $D # formationoftheagreement,andnoevidenceofdisparityinthebargainingpoweroftheparties. %0!$ Instead,wehavetwomatureandknowledgeableadults,eachwithhisowncareerandproperty,who &"% wishedtoequalizethefinancialburdensandrewardsincidenttotheirmarriage.Theyfreelyentered '#& intoanagreementforthatpurpose,andbothacknowledgethevalidityofthatagreement,exceptone  wishesustoinvalidateaprovisionthatwouldbetohisdisadvantage.Weseenoreasontodoso.  Ѐ  @) V.  t   Theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.RemandthiscausetotheCircuitCourtofDavidson L  Countyforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Taxthecostsonappealtotheappellant, 8  _Klebber_Ԁ_Dunklin_Ԁ_Murrey_. $ t      `     h   _________________________________________      `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.# GX XA # XAX G      `