# In Re Estate of Geyer

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702216

## 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:** Dissent by Flaherty
- **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/9702216

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. Numerous societal changes have impacted upon family units in recent times, and the law has advanced accordingly to recognize the equal status of men and women in our society. No longer are women regarded as the “weaker” party in a marriage, or in society generally. Accordingly, the law has discarded presumptions and protections that arose to protect women from the inferiorities and incapacities which they were perceived as having in earlier times.
Enlightened thinking has accorded equality between the sexes, and, with that equality, it has become inconsistent to preserve special protections that arose in response to perceived inequalities. Certainly, it is not surprising that persons may attempt to reap the benefits of being “equal,” while asserting the need for special protections in areas where it would be self-serving to assert certain limited inequalities. To enjoy the benefits of being equal, however, without sharing in the burdens thereof, would be unsupportable. In recognition of this, the law has accorded equal rights to all spouses, without reference to gender. In the context of the instant case, where the validity of an ante-nuptial agreement is at issue, there is no basis for allowing to stand an implicit presumption that spouses are of unequal status or not knowledgeable enough to understand the nature of the contracts they enter. If, in fact, there is fraud, misrepresentation, or overreaching, then traditional principles of contract law provide an adequate remedy.
*517 The opinion authored by Mr. Justice McDermott reaches a contrary result. Instead of applying the traditional rule of contract law that binds one to the contents of agreements entered, a contrary rule is applied, which, in effect, binds one only if it is determined that the terms, and effects, of the agreement were fully understood. This is a departure from longstanding, traditional principles of contract law. See Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Insurance, 503 Pa. 300, 305 , 469 A.2d 563, 566 (1983) (failure to read a contract does not warrant avoidance or nullification of its provisions); Estate of Brant, 463 Pa. 230, 235 , 344 A.2d 806, 809 (1975); Bollinger v. Central Pennsylvania Quarry Stripping & Construction Co., 425 Pa. 430, 432 , 229 A.2d 741, 742 (1967) (“Once a person enters into a written agreement he builds around himself a stone wall, from which he cannot escape by merely asserting he had not understood what he was signing.”); Montgomery v. Levy, 406 Pa. 547, 550 , 177 A.2d 448, 450 (1962) (one is legally bound to know the terms of the contract entered). Based upon these principles, the terms of the instant ante-nuptial agreement should be regarded as binding, without inquiry into whether the significance of the agreement was understood by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702216. Public record. Not legal advice.