holding that burden of proving existence of valid prenuptial agreement lies with party seeking to rely on contract.
How later courts described this case
- holding that burden of proving existence of valid prenuptial agreement lies with party seeking to rely on contract.
- invalidating agreement where, among other things, the husband “did not at anytime reveal to [wife] the extent or value of his holdings” and wife “was aware only of the nature of his business [and] had only general knowledge of his holdings”
- citing, Gillock v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 656 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1983). There is no presumption of correctness that attaches to the trial court's conclusions of law. Southern Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001
- holding that the proponent of the agreement has the burden of proof
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, C.L. Randolph, has filed a petition requesting this Court to grant a rehearing in this matter pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. For the reasons that follow, we grant the rehearing for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this order.
The plaintiff contends that reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment finding the antenuptial agreement invalid has effectively denied him of appellate review of other issues. He notes that as appellant before the Court of Appeals, he challenged not only the trial court’s ruling setting aside the-antenuptial agreement, but also the trial court’s ruling with regard to the division of marital property and the awarding of alimony in solido. The Court of Appeals, in finding that the antenuptial agreement was valid, did not address the remaining issues. The only issue before this Court, obviously, was the validity of the antenuptial agreement.
We agree that reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment would deny the plaintiff appellate review of issues that were already raised and argued before the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we agree that the petition to rehear should be granted for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the Eastern Section Court of Appeals to review the remaining issues raised by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has also argued that the petition for rehearing should be granted because this Court “overlooked a material fact found by the trial judge.” We find this issue to be without merit.
It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition to rehear is granted for the limited purpose of remanding the case to the Eastern Section Court of Appeals for consideration of the remaining issues on appeal. The judgment of this Court is modified accordingly.