# In Re Estate of Geyer

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 15, 1987 · 516 Pa. 492

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702214

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re ESTATE OF George W. GEYER, Deceased. Appeal of Rosalie S. GEYER, Widow
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 15, 1987
- **Citations:** 516 Pa. 492; 533 A.2d 423; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 844
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Zappala, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702214

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing application of the Equal Rights Amendment to interpretation of antenuptial agreements

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice, concurring.
I join the result reached by the Court but write separately to emphasize my reasoning. An antenuptial agreement, like any other agreement, must be construed in light of general principles of contract law. Thus, if the parties do not negotiate at arms length, the validity of any resulting contract is at issue. In In re Hillegass Estate, 431 Pa. 144 , 244 A.2d 672 (1968), we held that as a matter of public policy antenuptial agreements must be given special consideration because of the relationship between the parties. However, this does not mean that we can ignore traditional contract principles in evaluating a prenuptial agreement. Thus, in disposing of this appeal, we must first look to the agreement itself to determine whether there has been a full disclosure as set forth in paragraph 7 of the agreement. A presumption arises that full disclosure has been made if the agreement so provides. However, this presumption can be rebutted upon a showing of fraud or misrepresentation. In this case, the trial court determined that the decedent misrepresented to the Appellant Ms ownership interest in Geyer Kraft Korner. This is a material omission which is sufficient to rebut the plain language of paragraph 7 of the agreement. Accordingly, I join in the Court’s disposition and would hold that the decedent did not comply with the terms of the agreement, i.e. give the Appellant full disclosure of all his property.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702214. Public record. Not legal advice.