Mixon v. Mixon

9 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Brown

    26 So. 3d 1210 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that the trial court may consider the husband's admitted acts of adultery when making a property division and affirming a division of marital property that awarded the husband only 22.4% of the martial assets

    The wife also argues that the husband's presenting her with the antenuptial agreement on the day before the wedding, when the preparations for the wedding had already been made and out-of-town guests had already arrived, and at a time when obtaining legal advice was hampered by time constraints, created a coercive atmosphere in which she felt compelled to sign the agreement. In support of her argument, the wife relies on Ex parte Williams, 617 So.2d 1032, 1035 (Ala. 1992); Roberts v. Roberts, 802 So.2d 230, 234 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001); and Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999, 1000 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). Although the wife is correct that in Ex parte Williams the supreme court reversed a summary judgment holding an antenuptial agreement valid because questions of fact existed regarding whether an expectant mother's choice between signing an antenuptial agreement as a condition to marriage to legitimize her unborn child and being left to bear the stigma of unwed pregnancy because of her moral objection to abortion created a coercive atmosphere in which she had no choice but to sign the antenuptial agreement, Ex parte Williams, 617 So.2d at 1035, we cannot agree that the holding in Ex parte Williams is of benefit to the wife in the present case.

  2. Roberts v. Roberts

    802 So. 2d 230 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 49 times
    Affirming a child-support award in excess of the guideline amount because the parties' combined income exceeded the uppermost level of the child-support guideline schedule

    Antenuptial agreements have been held valid in Alabama. Ex parte Walters, 580 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1991); Strait v. Strait, 686 So.2d 1230 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996); Thornburg v. Thornburg, 628 So.2d 885 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993); Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). Marriage itself may be sufficient consideration for an antenuptial agreement.

  3. Goodwin v. Goodwin

    592 So. 2d 212 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 3 times
    In Goodwin, the husband and the wife executed a prenuptial agreement; in that agreement, the wife was granted a life estate in any home the husband owned in which she and the husband lived at the time of the husband's death.

    This admission meets one of the alternative requirements of a valid antenuptial agreement, i.e., that either 1) the consideration be adequate, and the entire transaction fair, just, and equitable; or 2) the agreement be entered into with competent, independent advice from counsel and full knowledge of any interest in the other party's estate, and its approximate value. Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999, 1000 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). Clearly the admission admits that Mrs. Goodwin knew of any interest in Mr. Goodwin's estate, and its approximate value.

  4. Ex Parte Walters

    580 So. 2d 1352 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 65 times
    Upholding validity of premarital agreement that included an alimony waiver

    At the outset, we note that ante-nuptial agreements have been held valid in Alabama. Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); Ruzic v. Ruzic, 549 So.2d 72 (Ala. 1989); Woolwine v. Woolwine, 549 So.2d 512 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); and Barnhill v. Barnhill, 386 So.2d 749 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 752 (Ala. 1980). In determining whether a specific ante-nuptial agreement is valid, the Court of Civil Appeals set out in Barnhill an "either/or" test; we find no error in this approach.

  5. Nelson v. Estate of Nelson

    53 So. 3d 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Finding agreement binding where plaintiff did "not allege that fraud or duress was involved in the execution of the agreement or that she was in any way prevented from seeking legal counsel."

    "This is particularly true when other factors are present such as the husband's relinquishment of any rights that he might have in the wife's estate." Id. See also Mayer v. Mayer, 628 So.2d 744 (Ala.Civ. App. 1993) (discussing enforceability of antenuptial agreements); and Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999, 1000 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989) (accord). In this case, Sarah and Wiley executed the postnuptial agreement eight and one-half months after they married.

  6. Strait v. Strait

    686 So. 2d 1230 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)   Cited 6 times
    In Strait v. Strait, 686 So.2d 1230 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), this court affirmed the trial court's determination that a prenuptial agreement was valid.

    She supports her argument by pointing to her testimony that she signed the agreement without legal advice and without full knowledge of the value of Jimmy's estate; she argues that, based on that evidence, the agreement must be found to be unfair and, therefore, invalid. Antenuptial agreements are recognized in Alabama; however, courts are to scrutinize such agreements to determine whether they are just and reasonable. Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). For an antenuptial agreement to be enforceable, the party seeking to enforce it has the burden of showing that the consideration for the agreement was adequate and fair, just, and equitable from the other party's point of view or that the agreement was freely and voluntarily entered into by the other party with competent, independent advice and full knowledge of his or her interest in the estate and its approximate value. Id. at 1000; Woolwine v. Woolwine, 519 So.2d 1347 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987). Under appropriate circumstances, marriage may be sufficient consideration for an antenuptial agreement, especially when other factors exist, such as the husband's relinquishment of any rights he may have in the wife's estate.

  7. Kilborn v. Kilborn

    628 So. 2d 884 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding the antenuptial agreement to be valid. Antenuptial agreements are valid in Alabama if they are just and reasonable. Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). The party seeking to enforce the agreement has the burden to show that consideration was adequate and that the entire transaction was fair, just, and equitable, or that the agreement was entered into freely and voluntarily by the other spouse, with competent, independent advice and with a full disclosure of the value of the property in question.

  8. Mayer v. Mayer

    628 So. 2d 744 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)   Cited 11 times
    In Mayer v. Mayer, 628 So. 2d 744, 745–46 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993), this court affirmed the trial court's decision to disregard a postnuptial agreement when it divided the marital assets in that case.

    "the one seeking to enforce the agreement has the burden to show that the consideration was adequate and that the entire transaction was fair, just, and equitable from the other party's point of view or that the agreement was freely and voluntarily entered into with competent, independent advice and full knowledge of any interest in the estate and its approximate value."Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999, 1000 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989). Although marriage may be sufficient consideration under the appropriate circumstances, we do not consider it to be sufficient in the instant case.

  9. Martin v. Martin

    612 So. 2d 1230 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)

    Elliott v. Elliott, 579 So.2d 1383 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991). Antenuptial agreements are recognized in Alabama; however, the trial court must carefully scrutinize such agreements to determine whether they are just and reasonable. Ex parte Walters, 580 So.2d 1352 (Ala. 1991); Coggins v. Coggins, 601 So.2d 109 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992); Mixon v. Mixon, 550 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); and Barnhill v. Barnhill, 386 So.2d 749 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980). The trial court must determine whether there was adequate consideration, whether the transaction was fair and just and equitable, and whether the agreement was entered freely and voluntarily.