DRAFTING PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS POST HOOKER V. HOOKER

Posted on October 23, 2017 by Elizabeth Wolt, an AV rated attorney practicing Marital & Family Law in Naples & Ft. Myers, FL. She regularly blogs case law summaries and articles involving family law matters.

Prior to marriage, parties may seek to establish their rights via a prenuptial agreement to protect their interests (financial, property, etc.) in the event of a dissolution of marriage and/or death of one of the parties. To be effective, prenuptial agreements must be precisely written to effectively convey the parties’ interests and intentions. Hooker v. Hooker, 42 FLW S396a, a recent Supreme Cout decision, reflects the potential outcome when agreements are not clear, and the Court decides to weigh the perceived intentions of the parties rather than the expressed intentions of the agreement.

In Hooker, the parties had a prenuptial agreement that contained provisions stating that each party would keep their premarital property during the marriage with neither party obtaining an interest in the other party’s pre-marital property. Despite the existence of the agreement, the Supreme Court determined that the premarital properties were in fact marital property subject to equitable distribution upon the dissolution of the marriage. As it presently stands, this opinion may impact people with prenuptial agreements which are designed to protect their premarital property. The opinion may also change the way non-marital property can potentially evolve into marital property even while keeping separate title. Finally, the opinion may impact other property determinations based on claims that a spouse gifted interest in property to the other spouse during the marriage.

From the record, it appears Mr.Hooker was operating his titled assets with the understanding that the terms of their prenuptial agreement were written in stone. To wit, Mr.Hooker purchased properties with premarital assets that were used as marital homes in both Florida and New York; and believed that his wife could not obtain any interest in these properties even though they were used as marital homes, she chose the furnishings purchased and decorated them; was given a card for their anniversary with a picture of the New York property; was given a key and had free reign to run the properties; facts the court found dispositive. Mr. had a buyout provision Hooker apparently had no idea that his acts would create a donative intent because of the terms of the prenuptial agreement. His assumption was relatively consistent with family law principles, which included the presumption that premarital property designated in a prenuptial agreement remained premarital regardless of how it was treated as long as title did not change.

In this case, the facts were as follows: The parties married in 1987 in New York and moved to Florida in 1989. Both executed a prenuptial agreement before the marriage, the validity of which neither disputed. Both had inherited funds and independent finances throughout the marriage. In 2010 wife petitioned for Dissolution of the now 23 year marriage. Two pieces of residential property were the subject of this case, Hickstead and Lake George. The Husband had formed a company during the marriage Hooker Hollow, LLC. The husband purchased Hickstead in 1989 after his father paid $25K for a lottery ticket for the opportunity to purchase the vacant land property. The deed listed Alice I Hooker Trust FBO the husband, Timothy Hooker. By the time of filing it was a large working horse farm with a wing upstairs that served as the marital home and a wing used for a staff apartment. Lake George was located in lake George NY and titled only in the husband’s name and maintained a summer marital residence for the family. The expenses of the home paid for with the husband’s separate funds. The property was worth approx. 2.5 million dollars. Finding that the parties lived in and raised a family in these “assets, treated the properties as marital assets. Finding the proper standard of review to be competent, substantial evidence, the appellate court declined to overturn the trial courts findings and found donative intent based on the following: With regard to Hickstead both parties signed a mortgage and the property was found to be the marital residence where they raised their children and was the family’s primary home for approx. 20 ;years. In 1997 the Husband formed Hooker Hollow LLC, Husband was listed as the seller, but both parties signed the warranty deed transferring title of Hickstead into Hook Hollow LLC, which was created during the marriage. The Wife signed the closing documents and there was evidence she actually signed the deed. The same year, husband sold a half interest in Hooker Hollow LLC for a million dollars to Trelawny Farm. The principles of Trelawny Farms had a buyout provision on Hickstead that they exercised in 2010 and they purchased the property for 4.5 million dollars and Wife learned Husband has no intention of sharing the proceeds with her. . The court found the transfer of Hickstead to Hooker Hollow, LLC to most dispostive in finding donative intent and thus a marital asset. With regard to lake George, it was the family’s summer residence throughout the vast majority of the marriage. The court laid out the elements needed to establish donative intent.This decision determines whether non-marital property would easily be converted into marital property based on the parties’ actions over the years of their marriage; even when there is no change in title. This decision warrants a need to clearly state that no properties subject to a prenuptial agreement can be considered gifted to the other party and the other party’s acknowledgement of same even if all the elements of a gift are satisfied. Elizabeth Wolt (239)353-9988.