ÿWPC¹9 Å# Ö %á 04çU:w@U4•© 0D¸ 0JüU:F€bˆ 0T 0^ä 0hB 0rª 0| 0†˜ 0 1u®U,#U:O 0d‰ BíU, U*6 B)` DC‰ AMÌ !!&:"­`$ D3 '@'ÔÝ) 0@±/v~ñ/vÓo1 AOB7Æ‘7 0DW8 D/›8 BÊ8 0Òç8˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 X( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular $D%&E'()D*+D,Ó€8íb¸ 3|x8(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(Modern,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJune€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Because€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€voided€only€the€waiver€of€alimony€provision,€andÏbecause€the€antenuptial€agreement€contained€a€severability€clause,€other€provisions€of€theÏantenuptial€agreement,€such€as€those€governing€the€division€of€marital€property,€are€not€at€issue€inÏthis€appeal.Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€antenuptial€agreement€provided€that€in€the€event€of€separation€or€divorce,€Mr.€CaryÏwas€to€receive€$70,000€from€the€parties'€marital€property€and€that€any€marital€property€remainingÏwould€be€divided€equally.€€Since€the€parties'€net€marital€assets€did€not€exceed€$70,000,€the€trialÏcourt,€in€satisfaction€of€that€provision,€awarded€the€marital€residence€and€its€accompanyingÏindebtedness€of€approximately€$325,000€to€Mr.€Cary.€Ì'ÿÿdxd “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case€relied€on€dicta€from€òòKahn€v.€Kahnóó,€756€S.W.2d€685Ï(Tenn.€€1988),€to€support€its€conclusion.€€However,€that€case€is€inapposite.€€In€òòKahnóó,€this€CourtÏonly€considered€whether€the€husband€had€made€adequate€disclosure.€€While€the€waiver€ofÏalimony€provision€in€that€agreement€had€been€declared€void€by€the€lower€courts,€this€Court€did€notÏconsider€nor€decide€that€question.Ì ÊÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòIn€Re€Marriage€of€Dawleyóó,€551€P.2d€323€(Cal.€1976);€€òòNewman€v.€Newmanóó,€653€P.2d€728Ï(Colo.€1982)(En€Banc);€òòScherer€v.€Schereróó,€292€S.E.2d€662€(Ga.€1982);€òòMatlock€v.€Matlockóó,€576ÏP.2d€629€(Kan.€1978);€€€òòFrey€v.€Freyóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòOsborne€v.€Osborneóó,€428€N.E.2d€810€(Mass.€€1981);ÏòòBuettner€v.€Buettneróó,€505€P.2d€600€(Nev.€1973);€òòGross€v.€Grossóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòHudson€v.€Hudsonóó,€350ÏP.2d€596€(Okla.€1960);€€€òòUnander€v.€Unanderóó,€506€P.2d€719€(Or.€1973);€òòGant€v.€Gantóó,€329€S.E.2dÏ106€(W.€Va.€1985);€òòParniawski€v.€Parniawskióó,€359€A.2d€719€(Conn.€Super.€1976);€òòBurtoff€v.ÏBurtoffóó,€418€A.2d€1085€(D.C.€App.€1980);€òòVolid€v.€Volidóó,€286€N.E.2d€42€(Ill.€App.€1972);€òòFlora€v.ÏFloraóó,€337€N.E.2d€846€(Ind.€App.€1975);€òòTolar€v.€Tolaróó,€639€So.2d€399€(La.€App.€1994);€òòFerry€v.ÏFerryóó,€òòsupraóó;€€òòMarschall€v.€Marschallóó,€477€A.2d€833€(N.J.€Super.€Ch.€1984);€€òòKarkaria€v.€Karkariaóó,Ï592€A.2d€64€(Pa.€Super.€1991);€Contra€òòIn€Re€Marriage€of€Gundenkaufóó,€204€N.W.2d€586€(IowaÏ1973);€òòSousley€v.€Sousleyóó,€614€S.W.2d€942€(Ky.€1981);€òòCampbell€v.€Mooreóó,€1€S.E.2d€784€(S.C.Ï1939);€òòConnolly€v.€Connollyóó,€270€N.W.2d€44€(S.D.€1978).€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(‚(2A$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ XLîXXXÔÔ€ ôË÷ôX XLîÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ P ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€LîXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Óà@ àà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌÌCHARLES€M.€€CARY,€Jr.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€ò òòòFiled:€€€€June€3,€1996ó óóóÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€HARDEMAN€CIRCUITÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€C.€CREED€McGINLEY,ÌCATHY€ANN€CARY,à àà àà à)à àà à€€€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)à àNo.€€02„S„01„9505„CV„00035ÌÙ€€ÙßL€&'%;+'h|‘` Å `€€LßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àForÏAppellee:óóó óÌÌTerry€Abernathyà àà àà àà àà àCathy€Ann€Cary,€Pro€SeÌSelmer,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà à284€North€HighÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBells,€Tennessee€€38006ÌÌÌÌÔ€#LÔÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;ÌREVERSED€IN€PART;ÌTRIAL€COURT€JUDGMENT€REINSTATED.à àà àà àANDERSON,€C.J.ÇÑ  ÑÓÓ›Ñ7€LîXXdæXdæ7Ñà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€a€€provision€in€anÏantenuptial€agreement€by€which€a€prospective€spouse€waives€alimony€is€voidÏbecause€it€violates€public€policy.€€The€trial€court€held€that€such€a€provision€in€anÏantenuptial€agreement,€which€waived€alimony,€was€valid€and€enforceable€and,Ïtherefore,€denied€the€spouseððs€application€for€alimony.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,Ïhowever,€reversed,€holding€that€the€waiver€of€alimony€provision€was€void€asÏagainst€public€policy,€and€remanded€to€the€trial€court€to€consider€whether€toÏaward€alimony.ÌÌà àWe€have€determined€that€a€voluntary€and€knowing€waiver€or€limitation€ofÏalimony€in€an€antenuptial€agreement€is€not€void€and€unenforceable€as€contraryÏto€public€policy.€€€Such€provisions€will€be€fully€enforced€unless€enforcement€willÏrender€the€spouse€deprived€of€alimony€a€public€charge.€€Accordingly,€thatÏportion€of€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€which€holds€the€waiver€of€alimonyÏprovision€void€is€reversed€and€that€aspect€of€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òB€A€C€K€G€R€O€U€N€Dó óóóÌà àThe€plaintiff,€Charles€M.€€Cary,€Jr.,€and€the€defendant,€Cathy€Ann€Cary,Ïwere€married€June€23,€1990.€€It€was€the€first€marriage€for€Charles€Cary,€a€42„Ïyear„old€practicing€attorney,€and€the€second€marriage€for€Cathy€Cary,€a€30„Ïyear„old€school€teacher€with€a€Masterððs€degree€and€11€years€teachingÏexperience.€€Joining€their€household€was€her€son€from€her€first€marriage.ÌÌà àFour€days€before€their€wedding,€Charles€and€Cathy€Cary€executed€anÏantenuptial€agreement,€in€which€each€agreed€to€waive€and€release€ð ðany€and€allÏrights€and€claims€of€every€kind€to€alimony.ðð× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÌà àAfter€approximately€two€years€of€marriage,€Charles€Cary€filed€for€divorce,Ïalleging€inappropriate€marital€conduct,€but€further€asserting€that€the€partiesÏwere€ð ðequally€at€faultðð€and€could€be€declared€divorced€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð36„4„129(b)€(1991€Repl.).€€€Cathy€Cary€filed€a€counter„complaint€forÏdivorce€alleging€inappropriate€marital€conduct€and€irreconcilable€differencesÏand€requesting€alimony.€ÌÌà àFollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€declared€the€parties€divorced€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„129.€€Concluding€that€the€antenuptial€agreementÏwas€ð ðin€all€respects€valid€and€enforceable,ðð€the€trial€court€denied€Cathy€CaryððsÏrequest€for€alimony,€and€enforced€the€terms€of€the€antenuptial€agreementÏgoverning€the€division€of€marital€property.× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€Cathy€Cary€argued€that€the€entire€antenuptial€agreementÏshould€be€declared€void€due€to€her€husbandððs€lack€of€disclosure,€overreaching,Ïand€undue€influence.€€In€the€alternative,€she€contended€that€the€provision€in€theÏagreement€purporting€to€waive€alimony€in€the€event€of€separation€or€divorceÏwas€contrary€to€public€policy€and€unenforceable.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€rejected€Cathy€Caryððs€first€argument€and€approvedÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€with€regard€to€adequate€disclosure,€lack€of€undueÏinfluence,€and€overreaching.€€It€concluded€that€the€agreement€was€entered€intoÏfreely€and€knowledgeably.€€Relying€upon€earlier€intermediate€court€decisions,Ïhowever,€the€Court€of€Appeals,€in€a€two€to€one€decision,€concluded€thatÍprovisions€in€antenuptial€agreements€waiving€or€limiting€alimony€tend€toÏpromote€divorce€and,€as€such,€are€contrary€to€public€policy€and€unenforceable.€€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€majority€then€voided€the€waiver€of€alimony€provision€of€theÏantenuptial€agreement€and€remanded€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€to€consider€theÏappropriateness€of€an€award€of€alimony.ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€€provisions€inÏantenuptial€agreements€limiting€or€waiving€alimony€violate€the€current€publicÏpolicy€of€this€State.ÌÌà@ àò òòòWAIVER€OF€ALIMONYóóó óÌà àAlthough€this€Court€has€not€previously€considered€the€validity€of€aÏprovision€in€an€antenuptial€agreement€limiting€or€waiving€alimony,× ƒ+ ××  ×€the€issue€isÏnot€new€to€this€State€and€has€resulted€in€conflicting€intermediate€Court€ofÏAppeals€opinions.€€Over€30€years€ago,€in€òòCrouch€v.€Crouchóó,€385€S.W.2d€288Ï(Tenn.€App.€1964),€our€intermediate€Court€of€Appeals€considered€the€questionÏand€determined€that€such€provisions€promote€divorce€and€are€violative€of€publicÍpolicy.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€predicted€that€such€provisions€ð ðcould€induce€aÏmercenary€husband€to€inflict€on€his€wife€any€wrong€he€might€desire€with€theÏÑ , ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€$ u` Ñknowledge€his€pecuniary€liability€would€be€limited.€ð ð€€òòIdóó.€at€293.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòDuncan€v.€Duncanóó,€652€S.W.2d€913€€(Tenn.€App.€1983)€(ð ðWe€are€of€the€opinion€.Ï.€.€that€a€provision€in€an€antenuptial€agreement€which€purports€to€limit€aÏspouseððs€liability€for€alimony€is€conducive€to€divorce€and€therefore,€void.ðð).€€òòButóóÏòòseeóó€òòGross€v.€Grossóó,€No.€0257€(Tenn.€App.€May€17,€1989)(holding€such€aÏprovision€waiving€alimony€valid).ÌÌà àAt€the€time€of€its€adoption€in€òòCrouchóó,€the€rule€declaring€antenuptialÏprovisions€waiving€or€limiting€alimony€void€as€against€public€policy€was€widelyÏaccepted.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòNorris€v.€Norrisóó,€174€N.W.2d€368€(Iowa€1970);€òòFricke€v.ÏFrickeóó,€42€N.W.2d€500€(Wis.€1950);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Klarman,€òòMarital€Agreements€inÏContemplation€of€Divorceóó,€10€U.Mich.J.L.Ref.€€397,€398€(1977);€òòAnnotóó.€57ÏA.L.R.2d€942€(1958).€€Generally,€two€basic€public€policy€considerations€wereÏadvanced€to€support€the€rule€requiring€invalidation€of€such€provisions.€€First,Ïthey€were€considered€inimical€to€marriage€and€conducive€to€divorce.€€ArrangingÏin€advance€the€financial€contingencies€of€divorce€was€viewed€as€causingÏdiscord€and€instability.€€Because€a€divorce€could€only€be€obtained€by€a€showingÏof€fault€in€most€states,€these€provisions€were€believed€to€allow€ð ðmercenaryððÍspouses€to€inflict€abuse€with€little€concern€for€the€financial€consequences€whenÏthe€abused€spouse€sought€a€divorce.€€Indeed,€this€is€the€specific€reason€cited€byÏthe€òòCrouchóó€court.€€òòIdóó.,€385€S.W.2d€at€293.ÌÌà àSecond,€antenuptial€provisions€waiving€or€limiting€alimony€were€deemedÏcontrary€to€the€Stateððs€interest€in€assuring€that€a€divorced€spouse€is€adequatelyÏsupported€and€does€not€become€a€public€charge.€€òòFrey€v.€Freyóó,€471€A.2d€705,Ï708€(Md.€1984);€òòGross€v.€Grossóó,€464€N.E.2d€500,€505€(Ohio€1984);€òòFerry€v.ÏFerryóó,€586€S.W.2d€782,€785„86€(Mo.€App.€1979).ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€societal€and€legislative€changes,€many€state€courts€haveÏrevisited€the€common„law€rule€and€the€rationale€invalidating€such€agreements.€ÏAs€a€result,€a€line€of€authority€representing€the€majority€rule€now€has€emergedÏupholding€the€validity€of€provisions€in€antenuptial€agreements€which€waive€orÍlimit€alimony.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àWidely€recognized€as€leading€the€departure€from€the€old€common„lawÏposition€is€òòPosner€v.€Posneróó,€233€So.2d€381€(Fla.€€1970).€€Noting€the€increasedÏfrequency€of€divorce€and€remarriage€and€the€advent€of€no€fault€divorce,€theÏFlorida€Supreme€Court€in€òòPosneróó€held€that€public€policy€no€longer€requires€aÏper€se€rejection€of€antenuptial€agreements€settling€alimony€and€property€rightsÏupon€divorce.€€€The€Court€observed:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWith€divorce€such€a€commonplace€fact€of€life,€it€is€fair€toÏassume€that€many€prospective€marriage€partners€whose€propertyÏand€familial€situation€is€such€as€to€generate€a€valid€antenuptialÏagreement€settling€their€property€rights€upon€the€death€of€either,Ïmight€want€to€consider€and€discuss€also„„and€agree€upon,€ifÏpossible„„the€disposition€of€their€property€and€the€alimony€rights€ofÏthe€wife€in€the€event€€their€marriage,€despite€their€best€efforts,Ïshould€fail.ÌÌÌÌòòIdóó.,€233€So.2d€at€384.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€Colorado€Supreme€Court€agreed,€openly€rejecting€the€idea€thatÏantenuptial€provisions€waiving€or€limiting€alimony€foster€divorce.€€In€fact,€thatÏcourt€affirmatively€found€it€reasonable€ð ðto€believe€that€such€planning€brings€aÏgreater€stability€to€the€marriage€relation€by€protecting€the€financial€expectationsÏof€the€parties,€and€does€not€necessarily€encourage€or€contribute€to€dissolution,ððÏand€further€observed€that€ð ðsome€marriages€would€not€come€about€if€antenuptialÏagreements€were€not€available.ðð€€òòNewmanóó,€653€P.2d€at€732.€ÌÌà àLegislative€change€prompted€the€Maryland€Supreme€Court€to€abandonÏthe€old€common„law€rule.€€That€court€viewed€the€adoption€of€no€fault€divorceÏstatutes€throughout€the€country€as€undermining€the€original€justification€for€theÏrule€of€invalidating€antenuptial€provisions€waiving€or€limiting€alimony.€€òòFreyóó,€471ÏA.2d€at€709.€€Indeed,€the€òòFreyóó€court€recognized€ð ðthe€old€viewððs€fear€that€spousesÏcould€induce€a€divorce€through€fault,€without€consequence,€because€the€termsÏof€divorce€were€settled€in€advance€is€no€longer€persuasive€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àFinally,€as€they€altered€the€old€common„law€rule€to€reflect€contemporaryÏsociety,€many€courts€have€highlighted€the€change€in€societyððs€view€of€the€rolesÏof€men€and€women€generally,€and€specifically,€the€roles€of€husband€and€wife.€€ÏFor€example,€the€Illinois€appellate€court€noted€in€òòVolid€v.€Volidóó,€òòsupraóó,€that€ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àà à[w]hen€the€rules€regarding€the€husbandððs€duty€of€supportÏwere€first€enunciated,€the€roles€of€a€husband€and€wife€were€moreÏrigid€and€defined.€€The€husband€worked€and€brought€income€intoÏthe€family€while€the€wife€maintained€and€managed€the€household.€ÏThe€woman€generally€did€not€seek€outside€employment€partlyÏbecause€ð ðher€place€was€in€the€home,ðð€and€partly€because€fewÏopportunities€for€meaningful€employment€were€available.€€MarriedÏwomen€nowadays€are€increasingly€developing€career€skills€andÏsuccessfully€entering€the€employment€market.€€Where€a€woman€isÏtrained,€healthy,€and€employable,€and€where€a€womanððs€effortsÏhave€not€contributed€to€her€husbandððs€wealth€or€earning€potential,Ïthe€necessity€for€an€alimony€award€upon€breakup€of€the€marriageÏis€not€great.ÌÌ€ÌÓÓòòId.óó,€at€46.€€Elaborating€on€the€theme€of€the€modern€roles€of€men€and€women,ÏPennsylvaniaððs€intermediate€court€stressed,€ð ðboth€parties€to€an€antenuptialÏagreement,€regardless€of€gender,€stand€on€equal€ground€in€the€bargainingÏposture.€€.€.€.€The€law€has€advanced€to€recognize€the€equal€status€of€men€andÏwomen€in€our€society.€€Paternalistic€presumptions€and€protections€that€arose€toÏshelter€women€from€the€inferiorities€and€incapacities€which€they€were€perceivedÍas€having€in€earlier€times€have,€appropriately,€been€discarded.ðð€€òòKarkariaóó,€592ÏA.2d€at€70„71.€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€present€general€consensus€among€state€courts€thatÏantenuptial€agreements€waiving€or€limiting€alimony€are€not€void€as€againstÏpublic€policy,€there€is€also€a€near€universal€exception€which€precludes€specificÏenforcement€of€such€agreements€if€enforcement€would€deny€to€one€spouseÏsupport€that€he€or€she€cannot€otherwise€obtain€and€therefore€result€in€thatÏspouse€becoming€a€public€charge.€€òòSeeóó€òòNewmanóó,€653€P.2d€at€735€(citingÏcases).€ÌÌà àThe€Ohio€Supreme€Court€articulated€the€reason€and€the€rule€as€follows:€Ïð ð[T]he€underlying€state€interest€in€the€welfare€of€the€divorced€spouse,€whenÏmeasured€against€the€rights€of€the€parties€to€freely€contract,€weighs€in€favor€ofÏthe€courtððs€jurisdiction€to€review,€at€the€time€of€.€.€.€[the]€divorce,€the€terms€in€anÏantenuptial€agreement..."€to€insure€that€one€spouse€will€not€be€rendered€aÏpublic€charge€by€specific€enforcement€of€the€provision€waiving€or€limitingÏalimony.€€òòGrossóó,€464€N.E.2d€at€509.ÌÌÌà àAs€we€consider€the€question€of€whether€provisions€in€antenuptialÏagreements€waiving€or€limiting€alimony€are€contrary€to€the€current€public€policyÏof€this€State,€we€are€mindful€that€€ð ð[t]he€public€policy€of€Tennessee€'is€to€beÏfound€in€its€constitution,€statutes,€judicial€decisions€and€applicable€rules€ofÏcommon€law.ðð€€òòCrawford€v.€Buckneróó,€839€S.W.2d€754,€759€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(quoting€òòHome€Beneficial€Ass'n.€v.€Whiteóó,€180€Tenn.€585,€177€S.W.2d€545Ï(1944)).€€It€is€primarily€for€the€Legislature€to€determine€the€public€policy€of€thisÏstate;€however,€where€there€is€no€declaration€in€the€constitution€or€the€statutesÏand€the€area€is€governed€by€common€law€doctrines,€it€is€the€province€of€theÏcourts€to€consider€the€public€policy€of€the€state€as€reflected€in€old,€court„madeÏrules.€€òòIdóó.;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHanover€v.€Ruchóó,€809€S.W.2d€893,€896€(Tenn.1991).€ÏIndeed,€it€is€the€special€duty€of€this€Court€to€abolish€obsolete€common„lawÏdoctrines.€€òòIdóó.à àÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€as€in€most€every€other€state,€there€has€been€a€shift€inÏpublic€policy€by€the€General€Assembly€regarding€dissolution€of€marriage.€€AÏdivorce€may€be€obtained€on€the€grounds€of€irreconcilable€differences,€without€aÏshowing€of€fault€on€the€part€of€either€parties.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„101(11)€(1991€Repl.).€€Accordingly,€the€potential€for€abuse€which€the€òòCrouchóóÏcourt€predicted€might€flow€from€enforcement€of€provisions€waiving€or€limitingÍalimony,€is€not€present.€€A€spouse€who€desires€a€divorce€may€obtain€it€without€aÏshowing€of€fault.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€General€Assembly€has€recognized€the€earning€potentialÏand€the€changing€role€of€women€in€current€statutory€law€where€either€the€wife€orÏthe€husband€may€be€ordered€to€pay€alimony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101(a)(1)€(1991€Repl.€&€1995€Supp.)€€Gone€are€the€days€when€husbands€aloneÏbore€the€duty€of€support€and€wives€were€primarily€homemakers.€€Therefore,Ïparties€executing€an€antenuptial€agreement€which€contains€mutual€provisionsÏlimiting€or€waiving€alimony€are€now€on€equal€bargaining€ground.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€General€Assembly€has€specifically€approved€antenuptialÏagreements€concerning€property€owned€by€either€spouse€before€marriage.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„501(1991€Repl.)€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àNotwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law€to€the€contrary,Ï...€any€antenuptial€or€prenuptial€agreement€entered€into€byÏspouses€concerning€property€owned€by€either€spouse€before€theÏmarriage€which€is€the€subject€of€such€agreement€shall€be€bindingÏupon€any€court€having€jurisdiction€over€such€spouses€and/or€suchÏagreement€if€such€agreement€is€determined€in€the€discretion€of€theÏcourt€to€have€been€entered€into€by€such€spouses€freely,Ïknowledgeably€and€in€good€faith€and€without€the€exertion€ofÍduress€or€undue€influence€upon€either€spouse.€€The€terms€of€suchÏagreement€shall€be€enforceable€by€all€remedies€available€forÏenforcement€of€contract€terms.€ÌÌÓÓÌòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòKahnóó,€òòsupraóó€(discussing€disclosure€required€to€satisfy€knowledgeÏrequirement€of€the€statute).€€Although€this€statute€does€not€specifically€governÏantenuptial€provisions€waiving€or€limiting€alimony,€it€is€persuasive€evidence€thatÏantenuptial€agreements€are€favored€and€not€repugnant€to€the€public€policy€ofÏthis€State.ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€the€legislative€shift€in€public€policy€regarding€dissolution€ofÏmarriage€reflected€by€our€no€fault€divorce€statutes,€the€legislative€changes€inÏalimony€placing€men€and€women€in€equal€bargaining€positions,€theÏLegislatureððs€specific€approval€of€antenuptial€agreements€regarding€property,Ïand€contemporary€societyððs€changed€view€of€the€roles€of€men€and€women€allÏdictate€an€abandonment€of€the€old€court„made€common„law€rule€prohibitingÏantenuptial€provisions€which€limit€or€waive€alimony€for€reasons€of€public€policy.ÌÌà àThe€original€rationale€for€the€rule€„„€that€such€agreements€promoteÏdivorce€and€that€mercenary€spouses€may€abuse€with€impunity€cited€by€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€in€òòCouchó󀄄€is€no€longer€valid.€€We€agree€with€the€Florida€SupremeÍCourt€in€òòPosneróó€that€divorce€is€such€an€unfortunate€but€commonplace€fact€of€lifeÏthat€it€is€fair€to€assume€that€many€prospective€remarriage€partners€with€existingÏproperty€and€children€may€want€to€discuss€and€agree€upon€the€disposition€ofÏtheir€property€and€alimony€rights€in€the€event€their€marriage,€despite€their€bestÏefforts,€should€fail.€€We€think€the€public€policy€of€this€State€should€allow€suchÏparties€the€freedom€to€contract€and€to€agree€on€a€provision€limiting€or€waivingÏalimony.ÌÌà àWe,€therefore,€exercise€our€duty€to€abolish€obsolete€common„lawÏdoctrines€and€conclude€that€antenuptial€agreements€containing€a€provisionÏlimiting€or€waiving€alimony€are€not€void€as€contrary€to€public€policy.€€So€long€asÏthe€antenuptial€agreement€was€entered€into€freely€and€knowledgeably,€withÏadequate€disclosure,€and€without€undue€influence€or€€overreaching,€theÏprovision€limiting€or€waiving€alimony€will€be€enforced,€with€one€exception.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€Stateððs€interest€in€providing€adequate€support€for€itsÏcitizens€precludes€specific€enforcement€of€such€a€contract€provision€ifÏenforcement€€deprives€one€spouse€of€support€that€he€or€she€cannot€otherwiseÏobtain€and€results€in€that€spouse€becoming€a€public€charge.€€The€trial€court€mustÏexamine€the€terms€of€the€antenuptial€agreement€at€the€time€of€the€divorce€toÍinsure€that€its€enforcement€will€not€result€in€the€spouse€being€deprived€ofÏalimony,€becoming€a€public€charge.€€If€a€spouse€would€be€rendered€a€publicÏcharge€by€specific€enforcement,€the€trial€court€must€void€the€provision€andÏaward€alimony€in€accordance€with€the€factors€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„101€(1991€Repl.€&€Supp.€1995).ÌÌà àApplying€that€rule€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€the€Court€ofÏAppealsðð€judgment€declaring€the€waiver€of€alimony€provision€void€must€beÏreversed.€€Here,€the€lower€courts€made€concurrent€findings€of€fact,€by€which€weÏare€bound,€that€the€agreement€was€entered€into€freely€and€knowledgeably,Ïwithout€duress,€or€undue€influence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„1„113€(1980€Repl.).€ÏMoreover,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€enforcement€of€theÏagreement€will€render€Cathy€Cary,€a€person€with€substantial€prior€teachingÏexperience€and€a€Masterððs€degree,€a€public€charge.€€Under€such€circumstances,Ïthe€waiver€of€alimony€provision€is€valid€and€fully€enforceable.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àWe€conclude€that€a€voluntary€and€knowing€waiver€or€limitation€of€alimonyÏin€an€antenuptial€agreement€is€not€per€se€void€and€unenforceable€as€contrary€toÏpublic€policy.€€€Such€provisions€will€be€fully€enforced,€unless€enforcement€willÍrender€one€spouse€a€public€charge.€€€Accordingly,€that€portion€of€the€Court€ofÏAppealsðð€judgment€€voiding€the€waiver€of€alimony€provision€is€reversed€and€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€reinstated.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€Court€of€Appeals'Ïdecision€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€CathyÏCary,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch€and€White,€JJ.