ÿWPCL< Å# ÖUNá %/ 0 45U:iw@£4ã÷U: 0D@b„ 0JŒ 0TÖ 0^* 0hˆ 0rðb 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uüU,q 0d B U, U >J U*ˆ U*² B)Ü DC! D3H! AM{!È! 0@à"ù #U'Tn+fÂ-¼(.Žä0v~r2vÓð3 AOÃ9Æ: 0DØ: D/; BK; 0äh;˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ØDÙÚEÛÜUÝUÞoeßDàáÓ€©U!ÔddÔô3|xì-kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" 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`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptember€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ïÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€&Ôó óÝ  ÝÔ€&XÔ€"Ô€&ôÔNotwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law€to€the€contrary,€.€.€.€any€antenuptial€orÏprenuptial€agreement€entered€into€by€spouses€concerning€property€owned€by€either€spouseÏbefore€the€marriage€which€is€the€subject€of€such€agreement€shall€be€binding€upon€any€courtÏhaving€jurisdiction€over€such€spouses€and/or€such€agreement€if€such€agreement€is€determined€inÏthe€discretion€of€the€court€to€have€been€entered€into€by€such€spouses€freely,€knowledgeably€andÏin€good€faith€and€without€the€exertion€of€duress€or€undue€influence€upon€either€spouse.€€TheÏterms€of€such€agreement€shall€be€enforceable€by€all€remedies€available€for€enforcement€ofÏcontract€terms.€"€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„501€(1991€Repl.).Ì€Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€&Ôó óÝ  Ý€The€agreement€provides€specifically€that€ð ðPerry€forever€waives,€releases,€andÏrelinquishes€any€and€all€claims€to€or€rights€or€interest€in,€statutory,€equitable€or€otherwise,€to€theÏseparate€property€of€Randolph€owned€by€him€prior€to€the€marriage€and€to€any€property€acquiredÏafter€the€date€of€the€marriage€which€is€acquired€with€the€proceeds€or€income€from€property€ownedÏprior€to€the€marriage€or€is€traceable€to€property€acquired€prior€to€the€marriage.€€This€waiver€andÏrelease€includes€but€is€not€limited€to€any€claims€with€respect€to€dower€rights,€widowððs€allowance,Ïhomestead,€yearððs€support,€marital€share,€right€to€dissent€from€valid€will,€any€statutory€exemptÏproperty,€or€any€other€claim€which€she€might€acquire€with€respect€to€said€property€as€the€wife,Ïwidow,€heir€at€law,€next€of€kin,€or€distributee€of€Randolph.ðð€Ì JÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€&Ôó óÝ  Ý€This€provision€in€its€entirety€requires€that€ð ð[œi]n›€the€event€a€division€must€be€made€of€theÏpartiesðð€marital€property,€the€marital€property€shall€be€divided€based€upon€the€amount€invested€byÏeach€of€the€parties.€€The€parties€may€prove€their€investment€based€upon€their€records€of€income,Ïpurchases,€and€payments.ððÌ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€&Ôó óÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòNewman€v.€Newmanóó,€653€P.2d€728,€732€(Colo.€1982);€òòBurtoff€v.€Burtoffóó,€418ÏA.2d€1085,€1089€(D.C.€App.€1980);€òòDel€Vecchio€v.€Del€Vecchioóó,€143€So.€2d€17,€21€(Fla.€1962);ÏòòFrey€v.€Freyóó,€471€A.2d€705,€711€(Md.€1984);€òòFletcher€v.€Fletcheróó,€628€N.E.2d€1343,€1346€(OhioÏ1994);€òòKosik€v.€Georgeóó,€452€P.2d€560,€563€(Or.€1969);€òòButton€v.€Buttonóó,€388€N.W.2d€546,€550Ï(Wis.€1986).Ì „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€&Ôó óÝ  Ý€òòBurtoffóó,€418€A.2d€at€1089;€òòDel€Vecchioóó,€143€So.€2d€at€21;€òòSimeone€v.€Simeoneóó,€581ÏA.2d€162,€167€(Pa.€1990).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(rJ2Ý$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ò©‚òXXÔò òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ òÿòòò©‚Ôó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€–=XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€''XÐd&Ӝـ€ÙßL€+,);+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREMEÏCOURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€ò òòòFOR›€PUBLICATIONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœFiled:€€September€9,€1996óó›€ó óÌÓÓC.L.€RANDOLPH,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)€€€€€€œ€BRADLEY›€GENERAL€SESSIONSÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœVs›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€M.€DREW€ROBINSON,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVIRGINIA€HENLEY€RANDOLPH,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)à àNo.€œ03„S„01›„9510„CV„00119ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌRoger€E.€œJenne›à àà àà àà àJames€œF.›€œLogan,€Jr.›ÌœJENNE,€SCOTT€&€BRYANTà àà àLOGAN,€THOMPSON,€MILLER,€ÏCleveland,€Tennesseeà àà àà à€€BILBO,€THOMPSON€&€FISHER,€P.C.Ìà àà àà à›à àà àà àCleveland,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€&„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€&XÔÌÌÌœÌ̛̜REVERSED€AND€REMANDED;›ÌœTRIAL€COURT€JUDGMENT€REINSTATED.›à àà àà àANDERSON,€J.ÇÓÓÑ7€ˆXXdæXXdì7Ñà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€clarify€the€statutory€standard€by€which€theÏvalidity€of€antenuptial€agreements€should€be€judged.€€The€trial€court€in€this€caseÏheld€the€antenuptial€agreement€invalid,€finding€the€wife€did€not€ð ðknowledgeablyððÏsign€the€agreement,€as€required€by€statute× ƒ. ××  ×.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€in€a€splitÏdecision,€reversed,€finding€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€established€that€theÏwife€possessed€sufficient€knowledge€of€the€husbandððs€business€affairs€andÏfinancial€status€at€the€time€she€signed€the€agreement€to€meet€the€statutoryÏrequirement€of€"knowledgeably"€executing€the€agreement€and€that€theÏagreement€was€therefore€enforceable.€€Ìà àÌà àWe€interpret€the€statutory€requirement€that€an€antenuptial€agreement€isÏenforceable€only€if€entered€into€"knowledgeably"€to€mean€that€the€spouseÏseeking€to€enforce€an€antenuptial€agreement€must€prove,€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence,€either€that€a€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€the€nature,€extent€andÍvalue€of€his€or€her€holdings€was€provided€to€the€spouse€seeking€to€avoid€theÏagreement,€or€that€disclosure€was€unnecessary€because€the€spouse€seeking€toÏavoid€the€agreement€had€independent€knowledge€of€the€full€nature,€extent,€andÏvalue€of€the€proponent€spouseððs€holdings.€€ÌÌà àApplying€this€standard,€we€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€in€thisÏcase€and€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€wife€did€not€"knowledgeably"€sign€the€antenuptialÏagreement.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€is€reversed€and€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reinstated.€€ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àIn€1983,€Virginia€Perry€Randolph€contacted€C.L.€Randolph,€a€successfulÏreal€estate€businessman,€about€renting€a€place€to€live.€€They€began€dating,€andÏin€August€of€1983,€Virginia€and€her€13„year„old€son€moved€into€C.L.ððsÏresidence.ÌÌà àA€little€over€one€year€later,€in€September,€1984,€they€were€married.€€C.L.ÏRandolph,€age€52,€had€been€previously€married€five€times€and€Virginia€PerryÏRandolph,€age€46,€had€been€married€once€before.€€On€the€day€before€theirÏmarriage,€the€parties€entered€into€an€antenuptial€agreement€prepared€by€C.L.ððsÏlawyer.€€The€agreement€provided,€in€part,€€that€in€the€event€of€divorce€or€death,Ïeach€party€released€all€marital€rights€in€the€separate€property€of€the€other.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÏAlso,€in€the€event€of€divorce,€the€agreement€provided€that€the€division€of€maritalÏproperty€was€to€be€based€upon€the€amount€each€party€invested€in€the€property.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÏAt€the€time€the€agreement€was€executed,€Virginia€owned€virtually€no€assets,Ïexcept€personal€belongings,€while€C.L.€had€substantial€real€estate€holdings€thatÍwere€valued€in€1986,€at€approximately€$800,000.€€In€1983,€when€the€partiesÏwere€living€together,€C.L.€had€a€net€worth€of€between€$500,000€and€$600,000.ÌÌà àAlmost€from€the€beginning€of€their€marriage,€the€parties€experiencedÏdifficulties,€including€mental€and€physical€abuse,€and€adultery€on€the€part€ofÏC.L..€In€addition,€the€parties€had€substantial€health€problems,€both€before€andÏduring€the€marriage,€which€exacerbated€the€stress.€€Divorce€actions€were€filedÏon€at€least€two€prior€occasions€during€the€ten„year€marriage.€€The€present€actionÏbegan€when,€in€November€of€1993,€the€parties€again€separated€and€C.L.€filedÏfor€divorce,€asking€that€the€antenuptial€agreement€be€enforced.€€VirginiaÏcounter„claimed,€asserting€that€the€agreement€was€the€result€of€fraud,€duress,Ïcoercion,€undue€influence,€and€misrepresentation.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Virginia€testified€that€she€had€never€seen€the€antenuptialÏagreement€until€the€day€she€signed€it,€which€was€one€day€before€the€partiesÏwere€married.€€€Virginia€admitted€she€reviewed€the€agreement€on€the€drive€toÏthe€attorneyððs€office,€but€claimed€that€no€one€explained€it€to€her.€€Because€sheÏwas€responsible€for€a€minor€child€and€suffering€from€breast€cancer€at€the€timeÏthe€agreement€was€executed,€Virginia€said€her€only€choices€had€been€to€signÍthe€agreement€or€be€kicked€out€of€the€residence€she€and€her€son€had€sharedÏwith€C.L.€for€the€previous€year.€€As€to€her€knowledge€of€property€covered€by€theÏagreement,€Virginia€admitted€that€she€knew€about€some€of€C.L.ððs€propertyÏholdings,€but€she€insisted€that€she€was€not€aware€of,€nor€did€anyone€disclose€toÏher,€the€full€extent€and€value€of€his€assets€and€holdings.ÌÌà àVirginia€was€not€represented€by€counsel€when€she€signed€theÏagreement.€€However,€George€McCoin,€C.L.ððs€attorney€who€drafted€theÏantenuptial€agreement,€was€present€when€it€was€executed€and€testified€that€it€isÏhis€normal€practice€to€explain€such€agreements€to€both€parties€to€insure€aÏmutual€understanding€of€the€terms.€€McCoin,€however,€could€not€specificallyÏrecall€following€that€practice€with€Virginia.€€In€addition,€McCoin€acknowledgedÏthat€he€did€not€provide€Virginia€with€a€copy€of€C.L.ððs€financial€statement€prior€toÏexecution€of€the€agreement,€nor€discuss€the€specific€dollar€value€of€C.LððsÏholdings€with€her,€but€instead€only€discussed€C.L.ððs€assets€in€general€terms.€ÌÌà àLikewise,€C.L.€admitted€that€he€never€advised€Virginia€of€his€net€worth,Ïwhich€in€1983€was€between€$500,000€and€$600,000.€€He€asserted,€however,Ïthat€she€was€aware€of€the€nature€of€his€holdings€since€they€had€lived€togetherÍfor€more€than€one€year€before€the€agreement€was€signed,€and€she€hadÏaccompanied€him€to€many€of€his€properties€to€collect€rent.€€In€addition,€C.L.Ïtestified€that€Virginia€had€reviewed€the€agreement€prior€to€signing€it€and€hadÏmade€suggestions€for€changes,€including€a€provision€relating€to€a€watch.€ÏAlthough€Virginia€conceded€she€read€that€provision€before€signing€theÏagreement,€she€denied€that€the€provision€was€included€on€her€suggestion.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€foregoing€proof,€the€trial€court€found€that€both€parties€hadÏcontributed€to€the€breakup€of€the€marriage€and€awarded€the€divorce€to€each.€ÏAlthough€rejecting€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€agreement€was€procured€byÏfraud,€duress,€coercion,€undue€influence,€and€misrepresentation,€the€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€the€antenuptial€agreement€was€invalid.€€In€so€holding,€the€trialÏcourt€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€concern€of€the€Court€goes€to€the€ð ðknowledgeablyðð€requirementÏin€the€statute.€€The€failure€to€prove€this€requirement€in€the€CourtððsÏopinion€would€create€an€œinceptual›€impediment€to€the€contract.€€TheÏdefendant€has€the€burden€of€proof€in€this€regard.€€The€particularÏcontract€in€question€indicates€that€ð ðeach€party€has€sought€andÏobtained€independent€counsel€regarding€this€matter.ðð€€This€isÏsimply€not€the€case€according€to€all€the€proof.€€Mr.€McCoinÏrepresented€Mr.€Randolph€in€the€transaction.€€He€did€notÏremember€going€over€the€agreement€with€each€at€the€time€ofÏsignature.€€He€was€not€required€under€his€duties€to€go€over€theÍagreement€with€Mrs.€€Randolph.€€Proof€of€independent€counselÏwould€have€overcome€the€ð ðknowledgeablyðð€requirement.€€TheÏCourt€is€of€the€opinion€that€Mrs.€Randolph€probably€did€not€haveÏthe€means€nor€perhaps€the€wherewithal€to€secure€independentÏcounsel€to€advise€her€of€the€consequences€of€the€arrangementÏshe€was€about€to€enter€into.€€It€was€incumbent€upon€Mr.€RandolphÏto€assist€in€this€regard€due€to€the€prior€relationship€between€theÏparties€and€the€obvious€bargaining€disparity.€€Mr.€Randolph€was€aÏlearned€businessman€very€shrewd€in€his€dealings.€€Mrs.€€RandolphÏdid€not€possess€similar€tools€nor€abilities.€€The€agreement€statesÏan€untrue€fact€on€the€issue€of€independent€counsel.€€This€is€a€fatalÏflaw€to€the€Court€under€the€facts€set€out€above.€€For€this€reason€theÏCourt€finds€that€the€antenuptial€agreement€is€void€and€thereforeÏsets€it€aside.€€€Ìà àÌÌÓÓUpon€finding€the€agreement€void€and€unenforceable,€the€trial€court€€awardedÏVirginia€the€following:€€Ìà8 à(a)€à à€$3,705,€representing€her€one„half€interest€in€the€householdÏà àà àÌà àà àproperty€purchased€after€the€marriage;Ìà8 à(b)à à$41,500,€representing€her€interest€in€the€other€marital€à àÌà àà àproperty;Ìà à(c)à à€$125,000,€as€alimony€in„solido;€and€Ìà à(d)à à$3,000,€in€attorneys€fees.ÌÌà àC.L.€appealed,€and€in€a€split€decision,€the€Court€of€Appeals€concludedÏthat€the€evidence€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€as€toÏVirginiaððs€knowledge€when€she€signed€the€agreement.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏdetermined€that€neither€independent€counsel€nor€a€financial€statement€isÏabsolutely€necessary€to€satisfy€the€ð ðknowledgeablyðð€requirement€of€the€statute.€ÏAccordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€withÏrespect€to€the€validity€of€the€antenuptial€agreement,€the€division€of€maritalÏproperty,€and€the€award€of€alimony.ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€permission€to€appeal€to€consider€the€knowledgeÏrequired€to€sustain€the€validity€of€an€antenuptial€agreement.€€We€review€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€BecauseÏthe€trial€judge€is€in€a€better€position€to€weigh€and€evaluate€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses€who€testify€orally,€we€give€great€weight€to€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€onÏissues€involving€credibility€of€witnesses.€€òòGillock€v.€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibilityóó,€656€S.W.2d€365,€367€(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà@ àòòò òKNOWLEDGEóóó óÌà àIt€is€now€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€public€policy€allows€theÏenforcement€of€antenuptial€agreements€if€certain€prerequisites€are€satisfied.€€ForÏexample,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„3„501(1991€Repl.)€provides€that€"if€suchÏagreement€is€determined€in€the€discretion€of€the€court€to€have€been€entered€intoÏby€such€spouses€freely,€knowledgeably€and€in€good€faith€and€without€theÏexertion€of€duress€or€undue€influence€upon€either€spouse,"€it€is€enforceable.ÌÌà àThus,€under€the€statute,€such€agreements€are€enforceable€if€entered€intoÏfreely,€knowledgeably,€and€in€good€faith,€without€the€exertion€of€duress€orÏundue€influence.€€Since€both€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€rejectedÏthe€wifeððs€claim€that€the€agreement€was€procured€by€fraud,€duress,€coercion,Ïundue€influence,€and€misrepresentation,€the€only€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whetherÏthe€agreement€was€entered€into€ð ðknowledgeably.ððÌÌà àThe€wife€contends€that€the€agreement€was€not€entered€intoÏknowledgeably€since€the€husband€did€not€make€a€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€theÏnature,€extent,€and€value€of€his€assets,€and€she€had€no€independent€knowledgeÏof€that€information.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€husband€argues€that€disclosure€wasÍnot€necessary€in€this€case,€since€the€wife€had€gained€knowledge€of€his€holdingsÏas€a€result€of€their€relationship€prior€to€marriage.ÌÌà àThese€contentions€arise€from€interpretations€of€prior€TennesseeÏdecisions€rendered€both€before€and€after€enactment€of€the€above€statute.€€PriorÏto€the€statute,€at€common€law,€the€rule€governing€the€disclosure€required€toÏvalidate€antenuptial€agreements€was€announced€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€inÏòòBaker€v.€Bakeróó,€24€Tenn.€App.€220,€142€S.W.2d€737€(1940).€€In€that€case,€Mrs.ÏBaker€brought€suit€to€set€aside€an€antenuptial€contract€by€which€she€had€waivedÏher€statutory€right€to€share€in€the€estate€of€her€deceased€husband.€€She€claimedÏthat€when€the€agreement€was€signed,€she€did€not€know€her€husband€was€aÏwealthy€man.€€She€asserted€that€her€husband€had€a€duty€to€disclose€thatÏinformation€since€the€parties€were€engaged€and€therefore€in€a€confidentialÏrelationship€when€the€agreement€was€executed.€€Ìà àÌà àThe€òòBakeróó€court€agreed€and€stated€the€rule€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€rule€supported€by€the€weight€of€authority€may€be€stated€thus:ÏAn€engagement€to€marry€creates€a€confidential€relation€betweenÏthe€contracting€parties€and€an€antenuptial€contract€entered€intoÏafter€the€engagement€and€during€its€pendency€must€be€attendedÍby€the€utmost€good€faith;€if€the€provision€for€the€prospective€wife€is,Ïin€the€light€of€surrounding€circumstances,€wholly€disproportionateÏto€the€means€of€her€future€husband€and€to€what€she€would€receiveÏunder€the€law,€the€burden€rests€on€those€claiming€the€validity€ofÏthe€contract€to€show€that€there€was€a€full€disclosure€of€the€nature,Ïextent€and€value€of€the€intended€husbandððs€property,€or€that€sheÏhad€full€knowledge€thereof€without€such€disclosure,€and€that€she,Ïwith€this€knowledge,€voluntarily€entered€into€the€antenuptialÏsettlement.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€should€be€noted€that€under€this€rule€the€contract€is€notÏinvalidated€merely€because€the€portion€fixed€for€the€bride€is€smallÏor€disproportionate,€for,€if€fully€informed€and€advised,€the€intendedÏwife€may€be€entirely€satisfied€with€the€provision€made€for€her,€and,Ïif€she€then€voluntarily€enters€into€the€contract€she€is€bound€by€itsÏterms.ÌÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€745„46€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àThis€Court€first€addressed€the€disclosure€issue€following€adoption€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€36„3„501(1991€Repl.)€in€òòKahn€v.€Kahnóó,€756€S.W.2d€685Ï(Tenn.€1988).€€In€that€case,€the€parties€met€at€a€restaurant,€where€theÏprospective€wife€worked€as€a€waitress€and€the€prospective€husband€was€aÏpatron.€€The€husband€was€a€relatively€wealthy€businessman,€while€the€wifeÏowned€virtually€no€assets.€€The€prenuptial€agreement€was€the€suggestion€of€theÏhusband€and€was€prepared€by€the€husbandððs€lawyer.€€The€agreement€involvedÏthe€release€of€all€marital€rights€in€the€separate€property€of€each€spouse,€butÍrequired€the€husband€to€provide€the€wife,€in€the€event€of€divorce,€a€two„bedroomÏhouse€or€condominium€for€as€long€as€she€resided€therein€or€until€she€remarried.€ÏòòIdóó.,€at€686.€€As€in€the€present€case,€the€agreement€in€òòKahnóó€was€signed€one€dayÏbefore€the€parties€were€married,€and€the€wife€did€not€have€the€assistance€ofÏindependent€counsel.€€However,€there,€as€here,€the€parties€had€lived€togetherÏfor€more€than€one€year€prior€to€their€marriage.à àà àÌÌà àMrs.€Kahn€testified€that€she€was€not€made€fully€aware€of€the€extent€of€Mr.ÏKahnððs€financial€dealings€before€executing€the€agreement,€but€she€concededÏthat€she€knew€approximately€a€year€and€a€half€before€signing€the€agreementÏthat€he€was€worth€ð ðmillions€of€dollarsðð€and€ð ðwas€making€around€$360,000€a€yearÏfrom€all€his€investments.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€690.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Kahn€testified€that€heÏinformed€her€prior€to€signing€the€prenuptial€agreement€that€his€net€worth€wasÏbetween€eight€and€nine€million€dollars.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àIn€determining€the€validity€of€the€agreement,€this€Court€discussed€the€ruleÏannounced€by€òòBakeróó,€and€compared€it€to€the€requirements€of€the€statute,€statingÏas€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àA€comparison€of€the€requirements€of€the€statute€and€the€òòBakeróó€ruleÏreveals€that€the€statute€makes€no€reference€to€the€requirement€inÏòòBakeróó€that€where€the€provision€for€wife€in€an€antenuptialÏagreement€is€wholly€disproportionate€to€the€husbandððs€wealth,€aÏfull€disclosure€of€the€nature,€extent€and€value€of€husbandððsÏproperty€is€required€to€sustain€the€validity€of€the€agreement.€€OfÏcourse,€numerous€factual€scenarios€could€occur€in€which€theÏfailure€to€make€a€full€disclosure€of€assets,€liabilities€and€valuesÏwould€breach€the€statutory€requirement€that€the€contract€wasÏentered€into€freely,€knowledgeably€and€in€good€faith.€€ò òHowever,Ïin€this€case€it€is€not€necessary€that€we€resolve€theÏapparent€conflict€between€the€òòBaker€óórule€and€the€statuteÏbecause€we€find€that€the€antenuptial€agreementÏbetween€these€parties€fully€complies€with€the€testsÏimposed€in€either€of€those€rules.ÌÌÌòòó óIdóó.€at€694€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓÑ€1ÑÇà àApplying€the€rules€announced€in€òòBakeróó,€the€òòKahnóó€court€specifically€heldÏð ðthe€antenuptial€agreement€valid€because€the€wife€had€full€knowledge€of€theÏnature,€extent€and€value€of€the€intended€husbandððs€property€at€the€time€sheÏexecuted€the€agreement,€making€full€disclosure€at€that€time€unnecessary.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÏ696.€€The€record€in€òòKahnóó€reflected€that€Mrs.€Kahn€was€aware€of€every€valuableÏasset€Mr.€Kahn€owned€at€the€time€she€signed€the€agreement,€and€Mr.€Kahn€didÏnot€underestimate€the€value€of€any€asset.ÌÌà àInitially,€this€case€requires€that€we€resolve€the€issue€left€open€in€òòKahnó󀄄Ïwhether€the€statute€abrogated€the€rule€announced€in€òòBakeróó€requiring€proof€ofÏfull€disclosure€or€independent€knowledge€to€validate€an€antenuptial€agreement.€ÏIt€is€instructive€to€note€that€the€rule€announced€in€òòBakeróó€remains€the€prevailingÏview€throughout€the€country.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Judith€T.€Younger,€òòPerspectives€onÏAntenuptial€Agreements:€An€Updateóó,€8€J.€Am.€Acad.€Matrim.€Law.€1€(1992)Ï(hereafter€ð ðòòPerspectivesóó€at€____.ðð).€€Moreover,€unlike€the€court€in€òòKahnóó,€we€doÏnot€perceive€a€conflict€between€the€rule€announced€in€òòBakeróó€and€the€statuteÏproviding€for€enforcement€of€antenuptial€agreements€entered€intoÏð ðknowledgeably.ðð€€As€we€interpret€the€knowledge€element€of€the€statute,€theÏspouse€seeking€to€enforce€an€antenuptial€agreement€must€prove,€by€aÍpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€either€that€a€full€and€fair€disclosure€of€theÏnature,€extent,€and€value€of€his€or€her€holdings€was€provided€to€the€spouseÏseeking€to€avoid€the€agreement,€or€that€disclosure€was€unnecessary€becauseÏthe€spouse€seeking€to€avoid€the€agreement€had€independent€knowledge€of€theÏfull€nature,€extent,€and€value€of€the€proponent€spouseððs€holdings.€€Under€theÏstatute,€disclosure€or€full€knowledge€is€required€in€all€cases,€not€just€those€whichÏinvolve€an€agreement€in€which€the€provision€for€one€spouse€is€whollyÏdisproportionate€to€the€means€of€the€other€spouse.€ÌÌà àAt€least€three€principles€support€our€interpretation€of€the€rule.€€First,€asÏwas€recognized€in€both€òòBakeróó€and€òòKahnóó,€an€agreement€to€marry€gives€rise€to€aÏconfidential€relationship.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€As€a€result,€the€parties€to€an€antenuptial€agreementÏdo€not€deal€at€armsðð€length€and€must€exercise€candor€and€good€faith€in€allÏmatters€bearing€upon€the€contract.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àSecondly,€parties€to€an€antenuptial€agreement€are€very€often€ill„matchedÏin€terms€of€bargaining€power.€€As€one€court€put€it,€ð ðcandor€compels€us€to€raise€toÏa€conscious€level€the€fact€that,€as€in€this€case,€prenuptial€agreements€will€almostÏalways€be€entered€into€between€people€with€property€or€an€income€potential€toÏprotect€on€one€side€and€people€who€are€impecunious€on€the€other.ðð€€òòGant€v.ÏGantóó,€329€S.E.2d€106,€114€(W.€Va.€1985).€€Thus,€a€rule€requiring€full€disclosureÏor€independent€knowledge€serves€to€level€the€bargaining€field€for€the€party€inÏthe€weaker€position.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€unlike€other€private€commercial€contracts,€the€State€has€anÏinterest€and€is€a€party€to€every€marriage.€€òòGantóó,€329€S.E.2d€at€114.€€In€theÏabsence€of€antenuptial€agreements,€state€laws€govern€the€division€of€maritalÏproperty€and€the€awarding€of€alimony€in€the€event€of€divorce.€€Often,€antenuptialÏagreements€alter€the€rights€parties€otherwise€would€have€under€those€stateÏlaws.€€Consequently,€it€is€altogether€appropriate€that€parties€entering€intoÏantenuptial€agreements€do€so€with€knowledge€of€the€holdings€to€which€they€areÏwaiving€any€claim€under€state€law.€€òòFletcheróó,€628€N.E.2d€at€1347.ÌÌà àAs€we€view€the€statute,€knowledge€is€simply€an€element€that€must€beÏproven€to€establish€the€existence€of€a€valid€contract.€€Ordinarily,€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€existence€of€a€valid€contract€is€upon€the€person€relying€on€theÏcontract.€€In€the€context€of€antenuptial€agreements,€the€same€is€true.€€TheÏproponent€has€the€burden€of€establishing€the€existence€and€terms€of€theÏagreement,€as€would€be€the€situation€in€any€other€contractual€setting.€€òòLebeck€v.ÏLebeckóó,€881€P.2d€727,€733€(N.M.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àThe€extent€of€what€constitutes€ð ðfull€and€fairðð€disclosure€varies€from€case€toÏcase€depending€upon€a€number€of€factors,€including€the€relative€sophisticationÏof€the€parties,€the€apparent€fairness€or€unfairness€of€the€substantive€terms€of€theÏagreement,€and€any€other€circumstance€unique€to€the€litigants€and€their€specificÏsituation.€€òòPerspectivesóó€at€25.€€While€disclosure€need€not€reveal€precisely€everyÏasset€owned€by€an€individual€spouse,€at€a€minimum,€full€and€fair€disclosureÏrequires€that€each€contracting€party€be€given€a€clear€idea€of€the€nature,€extent,Ïand€value€of€the€other€partyððs€property€and€resources.€€òòIdóó.€€Though€not€required,Ïa€fairly€simple€and€effective€method€of€proving€disclosure€is€to€attach€a€net€worthÏschedule€of€assets,€liabilities,€and€income€to€the€agreement€itself.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòPajak€v.€Pajakóó,€385€S.E.2d€384,€388€(W.€Va.€1989);€òòHartz€v.€Hartzóó,€234€A.2dÍ865,€871,€n.€3€(Md.€1967)€(ð ðThe€careful€practitioner€has€often€caused€to€beÏprepared€an€itemization€of€the€property€covered€by€the€agreement€withÏappraised€values€and€caused€it€to€be€made€part€of€the€agreement.ðð).ÌÌà àIn€the€absence€of€full€and€fair€disclosure,€an€antenuptial€agreement€willÏstill€be€enforced€if€the€spouse€seeking€to€avoid€the€agreement€had€independentÏknowledge€of€the€full€nature,€extent,€and€value€of€the€other€spouseððs€propertyÏand€holdings.€€Of€course,€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€caseÏgovern,€to€a€great€degree,€the€determination€of€knowledge.€€Some€factorsÏrelevant€to€the€assessment€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€partiesðð€respectiveÏsophistication€and€experience€in€business€affairs,€the€duration€of€theÏrelationship€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€agreement,€the€time€of€the€signing€ofÏthe€agreement€in€relation€to€the€time€of€the€wedding,€and€the€partiesððÏrepresentation€by,€or€opportunity€to€consult€with,€independent€counsel.€ÏòòPerspectivesóó€at€18;€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòNorris€v.€Norrisóó,€419€A.2d€982,€985€(D.C.€App.Ï1980);€òòDel€Vecchioóó,€143€So.€2d€at€21;€òòSimeoneóó,€581€A.2d€at€167.ÌÌà àThough€representation€by€independent€counsel€may€be€the€bestÏevidence€that€a€party€has€entered€into€an€antenuptial€agreement€voluntarily€andÍknowledgeably,€no€state€makes€consultation€with€independent€counsel€anÏabsolute€requirement€for€validity.€€òòPerspectivesóó€at€18.€€€Some€states,€however,Ïrequire€that€each€party€have€the€òòopportunityóó€to€consult€with€legal€counsel€of€hisÏor€her€own€choice,€but€do€not€require€actual€consultation€for€the€agreement€toÏbe€upheld.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGantóó,€329€S.E.2d€at€116.€€Finally,€some€states€hold€thatÏthe€presence€or€absence€of€independent€counsel€is€just€another€factor€to€beÏconsidered€when€determining€if€the€agreement€was€entered€intoÏknowledgeably.€€òòPerspectivesóó€at€22;€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòEx€Parte€Waltersóó,€580€So.€2dÏ1352,€1354€(Ala.€1991);€òòMatter€of€Benkerððs€Estateóó,€331€N.W.2d€193,€198€(Mich.Ï1982).€€€It€is€in€this€last€category€that€Tennessee€is€found.€€òòKahnóó,€756€S.W.2d€atÏ695.€€ÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€rules€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€theÏhusband€failed€to€prove€the€existence€of€a€valid€agreement.€€There€is€no€claim€inÏthis€case€that€full€and€fair€disclosure€was€provided€to€the€wife.€€Instead,€theÏhusband€claimed€that€the€wife€had€full€knowledge€of€the€nature,€extent,€andÏvalue€of€his€holdings€at€the€time€she€signed€the€agreement.€€The€record,Ïhowever,€does€not€support€that€claim.€€Although€the€wife€resided€with€theÏhusband€for€about€a€year€before€their€marriage,€he€did€not€at€anytime€reveal€toÍher€the€extent€or€value€of€his€holdings.€€She€was€aware€only€of€the€nature€of€hisÏbusiness€„„€that€he€conducted€a€real€estate€business.€€Although€theirÏrelationship€was€of€a€fair€duration,€she€testified€that€she€had€only€generalÏknowledge€of€his€holdings.€€Her€testimony€was€corroborated€by€her€husbandÏand€his€attorney.€€From€the€record€it€appears€the€only€business€of€which€she€hadÏspecific€knowledge€was€a€losing€concern.€€Though€specific€appraisal€values€areÏnot€required€to€sustain€the€validity€of€an€antenuptial€agreement,€knowledge€ofÏthe€proponent€spouseððs€overall€net€worth€is€necessary.€€In€terms€of€theÏcomparative€sophistication€and€business€experience€of€the€parties,€the€recordÏclearly€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€ð ðMr.€Randolph€was€a€learnedÏbusinessman€very€shrewd€in€his€dealings.ðð€€The€wife,€in€contrast,€possessed€noÏprior€business€experience€or€knowledge.€€Moreover,€the€agreement€at€issueÏwas€executed€one€day€before€the€parties€were€married.€€€The€wife€wasÏpresented€with€the€agreement€on€the€way€to€the€attorneyððs€office,€at€a€time€whenÏshe€was€in€ill€health.€€She€had€no€opportunity€to€personally€study€the€agreementÏor€to€seek€advice€from€her€own€attorney€or€others€close€to€her.ÌÌà àAs€we€emphasized€in€òòKahnóó,€òòsupraóó,€consultation€with€independentÏcounsel€is€not€required€and€is€merely€one€factor€relevant€to€the€assessment€€ofÍknowledge,€and€to€the€extent€the€trial€courtððs€decision€can€be€read€to€requireÏsuch€consultation,€it€is€not€approved.€€We€have€analyzed€the€record€applying€theÏforegoing€rules€and€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Virginia€Randolph€did€not€enter€into€the€agreementÏknowledgeably.€€Accordingly,€the€antenuptial€agreement€is€unenforceable.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthe€trial€court's€finding€that€Virginia€Randolph€did€not€knowledgeably€enter€intoÏthis€antenuptial€agreement,€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€is€reversed.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reinstated€and€this€cause€is€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€decision,€including€assessment€of€attorney€feesÏon€appeal.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff,€C.L.€Randolph,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€and€White,€JJ.Ì