Opinion
Nos. 68-420 and 68-421
Decided May 28, 1969.
Antenuptial agreement — Each relinquishing all rights in property of other — Subsequent marriage of parties and death of husband — Widow, with business experience, informed of terms of agreement before execution — Agreement valid.
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
Katharine R. Osborn, appellee, instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas for a declaration of her rights as surviving spouse of Henry C. Osborn, deceased, and seeking to set aside an antenuptial agreement.
The antenuptial agreement between plaintiff and Henry C. Osborn was executed on August 1, 1955, at which time the parties were engaged. They were married on August 27, 1955. Osborn, who was 77 years of age, was a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, and had a summer home in Massachusetts. Plaintiff, at the time of the marriage, was 54 years of age and lived in Massachusetts. After the marriage they resided in Cleveland. At the time of the execution of the agreement and marriage Osborn had two living children from a prior marriage and plaintiff had four.
The antenuptial agreement was drawn up by Osborn's counsel in Cleveland and was executed in Massachusetts. Before execution, a Massachusetts attorney was asked to confer with the parties in regard to the agreement. At that time, plaintiff privately discussed the purpose of the conference with the attorney. Later, the attorney advised that the agreement would be enforceable under Massachusetts law. Then, in the presence of the attorney, the parties went over the agreement, discussed it, and signed it.
In pertinent part the agreement provides:
"* * * each of said parties shall have, hold and maintain his or her separate control, ownership and disposition of said property owned by each of them respectively * * * as if said marriage had not occurred; that neither of the parties hereto shall acquire by virtue of said marriage any ownership or right or control in or to the property of the other during coverture between them nor the right of inheritance in the property of the other by the survivor of them; that each of the parties hereto may make such disposition of his or her property, by gift or by will, during his or her lifetime as he or she sees fit * * * the survivor shall have and take no interest in the property or the estate of the party deceased as he or she might lawfully do had not this agreement been made * * * and the property of such deceased party shall immediately pass to and vest in the lawful heirs of said deceased party exclusive of such surviving spouse."
The trial court found that Osborn was settlor of a trust which he had established in 1920 (known as the Osborn Trust No. 1) which, at the time of the execution of the agreement, was comprised of property with a net value of $2,615,640, of which $1,657,500 consisted of stock of Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation (of which Osborn was an officer and director) which had a cost basis of $185,256 and that Osborn's other assets had a net value of $100,000.
In respect to plaintiff's property at the time of the execution of the agreement, the trial court found that she had life income from and control of a revocable trust valued at $165,000, and additional assets with a net value of $75,000.
When the antenuptial agreement was signed, plaintiff, as executrix of her first husband's estate, was involved as a plaintiff in litigation in Delaware and in federal court in New York. No recovery was had in the Delaware action but plaintiff received $41,250 as a result of the action in New York.
Subsequent to the marriage Osborn established a trust (Trust No. 4) for the benefit of plaintiff with $218,900 in securities taken from his Trust No. 1. Plaintiff received income of $51,546 from this trust during Osborn's life. At his death the trust became irrevocable and was valued at $634,762. Under Trust No. 4, plaintiff was given a testamentary power of appointment.
In 1956 Osborn purchased a home in Florida for $53,000 and, upon his death, title to the property vested in plaintiff. In 1961 he purchased an adjoining lot in Florida for $13,200 to which plaintiff now has title.
In the trial court, plaintiff prayed that the court set aside the antenuptial agreement; that she be restored to her rights as surviving spouse of Henry C. Osborn; and that the court decree that plaintiff was entitled to take her distributive share under Section 2105.06, Revised Code, in the property included in the Henry C. Osborn trust (Osborn Trust No. 1) by reason of Osborn's retention of dominion over the property in that trust.
The trial court held that the antenuptial agreement was valid and that plaintiff was not entitled to an intestate share of Osborn's estate. Nonetheless the trial court proceeded to examine the validity of the Osborn Trust No. 1 and expressed its opinion that, due to the complete dominance of Osborn, the trust "was not a trust in fact." In conclusion, the trial court found "that the antenuptial agreement was valid * * * and that plaintiff's petition is hereby dismissed." No specific ruling was made as to the validity of the trust.
In case No. 68-420, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals concerning the trial court's judgment as to the validity of the antenuptial agreement. In case No. 68-421, defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals concerning the trial court's failure to determine the validity of the trust.
In case No. 68-420, the Court of Appeals held that the antenuptial agreement was invalid on authority of Juhasz v. Juhasz, 134 Ohio St. 257, and reversed the judgment.
In case No. 68-421, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to determine the validity of the Osborn Trust No. 1 and remanded the cause with instructions to determine said issue.
The causes are now before this court pursuant to the allowance of motions to certify the records.
Messrs. Jones, Day, Cockley Reavis, Mr. Ellis McKay, Mr. Nelson P. Rose, Mr. Alexander Ginn and Mr. Marc L. Swartzbaugh, for appellee.
Messrs. Arter, Hadden, Wykoff Van Duzer, Mr. Thomas V. Koykka, Mr. Robert B. Preston and Mr. J. Ross Haffey, Jr., for appellants.
In case No. 68-420, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court on the authority of Juhasz v. Juhasz, 134 Ohio St. 257.
In that case, the opinion shows that the antenuptial agreement was explained to the wife by the husband's attorney "on the occasion of a Hungarian dinner * * * to which Mary Kenyo [the wife] had been invited to meet those present and to make `streudel,' a Hungarian dish." The wife's knowledge of the English language was so limited that an interpreter was required to assist in explaining the agreement to her.
The facts in the present appeals indicate that the plaintiff, a woman of considerable means herself, was thoroughly informed of the terms of the agreement and had discussed them with the decedent. Plaintiff was, to say the least, not without business experience, and she voluntarily entered into the agreement after careful deliberation.
We believe, as did the trial court, that the facts of this case are not governed by Juhasz but by Troha v. Sneller, 169 Ohio St. 397, and that therefore the antenuptial agreement is valid. Accordingly, in case No. 68-420, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
In case No. 68-421, the Court of Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court to determine the issue of the validity of the Osborn Trust No. 1. In view of our holding that the antenuptial agreement is valid, such determination of the validity of that trust is unnecessary, and therefore the judgment of the Court of Appeals in case No. 68-421 is reversed.
Judgments reversed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, LEACH, HERBERT and DUNCAN, JJ., concur.
LEACH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for SCHNEIDER, J.