Section 4.22 Burden of Proof

• Library: Family Law Deskbook and 2014 Supp

1. (§4.22) Burden of Proof

The majority of appellate court decisions in Missouri addressing the issue of validity of antenuptial and postnuptial agreements involve claims for spousal rights against the estate of a deceased spouse. Regardless of whether the cases involve these claims or claims asserted in dissolution of marriage actions, the majority of decisions appear to place the burden of proof pertaining to enforceability on the party seeking to invalidate the agreement. See:

· Heady v. Heady, 766 S.W.2d 489 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989)

· State ex rel. Rope v. Borron, 762 S.W.2d 427
(Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (distinguishing Hosmer v. Hosmer, 611 S.W.2d 32 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980), and Estate of Murphy, 661 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. App. S.D. 1983))

· McQuate v. White, 389 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. 1965)

Particular care should be given to how the issues are pleaded regardless of whether the matter is in equity, probate court, or family court.

Courts, in dicta, have indicated that a lower level of scrutiny may apply with respect to antenuptial and postnuptial agreements that are contingent on the death of a party as opposed to divorce. But no Missouri court has yet to fully address this issue. This was the case in
In re Estate of Robertson, 60 S.W.3d 686 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001), in which the husband contended that his wife failed to make a full disclosure of her assets in their antenuptial agreement that was contingent on death. Relying on Ferry v. Ferry, 586 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979) (a court “finds favor premised in part on an assumption that such agreements promote domestic harmony”), the Robertson court discussed the possibility of utilizing a lower level of scrutiny with respect to the decedent’s disclosure of her assets but declined to further explore the issue because the husband testified that he had not read the agreement and, as such, rendered the court’s discussion moot.

Despite the foregoing, it is still the responsibility of the party seeking enforcement with respect to property in a dissolution of marriage action to provide evidence rebutting the marital property presumption. Searcy v. Searcy, 658 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). This is especially so when the property at the time of dissolution is different than what was originally disclosed at the time of execution.

In Dardick v. Dardick, 948 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), the wife claimed that certain property purchased with funds from a joint account was marital property because, once the husband’s separate property was placed into the joint account, it was converted into marital property. But the character of the property as community/marital—this was a California antenuptial agreement—or separate is not determined by the presumptions set forth by statute or caselaw but by the terms of the contract. In Dardick, the agreement clearly...