McKee-Johnson v. Johnson

Why This Case Matters

Prenuptial agreements are common, but many people wonder whether a court will actually enforce one. McKee-Johnson v. Johnson is the leading Minnesota case on what makes a prenuptial agreement valid. The Supreme Court ruled that these agreements are enforceable, but only if they are both procedurally and substantively fair. The person who wants to enforce the agreement bears the burden of proving that fairness. This case sets the ground rules that Minnesota courts still follow when deciding whether to honor a prenuptial agreement.

The Facts

Lance Johnson was 40 years old and Mary McKee-Johnson was 37 when they married in 1980. Both had been through a previous divorce. Before the wedding, Johnson had his attorney prepare an antenuptial (prenuptial) agreement. The agreement provided that any property acquired and held separately by either party during the marriage would remain that person’s property if they divorced. Mary signed the agreement two days before the wedding.

During the marriage, the couple had one child, Daniel, born in 1982. The marriage broke down, and in 1987 they began divorce proceedings. Mary challenged the antenuptial agreement, arguing it should not be enforced.

The district court held that the agreement’s marital-property provisions were void. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Lance then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether the antenuptial agreement was enforceable.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that antenuptial agreements allocating marital property are valid under Minnesota common law. However, the court made clear that such agreements must meet a two-part fairness test.

First, the agreement must be procedurally fair. This means both parties must have had full disclosure of each other’s financial situation, adequate time and opportunity to consult with independent counsel, knowledge of their rights, and freedom from duress or undue pressure. Second, the agreement must be substantively fair. The terms themselves cannot be unconscionable or leave one spouse without adequate provision.

The court placed the burden of proving fairness on the party seeking to enforce the agreement – in this case, Lance. Because the lower courts had not evaluated the agreement under this framework, the Supreme Court sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its new standard.

What This Means for You

• Prenuptial agreements are enforceable in Minnesota: The law recognizes your right to agree in advance on how property will be handled if the marriage ends. But the agreement must be fair.
• Both sides must be treated fairly in the process: Full financial disclosure is required. Both parties should have the chance to consult their own attorney. Signing under pressure or without understanding your rights can make the agreement unenforceable.
• The terms themselves must be reasonable: Even if the process was fair, a court can refuse to enforce an agreement that leaves one spouse with nothing or is grossly one-sided.
• The person who wants to enforce the agreement must prove it is fair: If your spouse challenges a prenuptial agreement, you will need to show the court that the agreement was fair both in how it was made and in what it requires.
• If you are considering a prenuptial agreement, get independent legal advice: Each party should have their own attorney review the agreement. An attorney can help you understand your rights and make sure the agreement will hold up in court if it is ever challenged.