Tina Clark v. John Clark

Elizabethtown, North Carolina family law lawyers represented the parties in a divorce action.



The parties were married on 12 July 1997. Six days prior to their wedding, on 6 July 1997, Defendant presented Plaintiff with a Premarital Agreement, which she then signed. The parties separated on 19 September 2021.



Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint in Bladen County District Court on 9 June 2022. The Complaint included, inter alia, a claim for Equitable Distribution, Motion for Interim Distribution and Motion for Declaratory Judgment Invalidating Prenuptial Agreement, seeking to set aside the Premarital Agreement. On 16 August 2022, Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaims, which included pleading the Premarital Agreement in bar of Plaintiff's Equitable Distribution claims and seeking specific performance of the Premarital Agreement.



* * *



Defendant concedes the trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof. However, Defendant contends remand is not warranted because it would be futile. See Arnold v. Ray Charles Enters., Inc., 264 N.C. 92, 99, 141 S.E.2d 14, 19 (1965) ("To remand this case for further findings, however, when defendants, the parties upon whom rests the burden of proof here, have failed to offer any evidence bearing upon the point, would be futile."); Cnty. of Durham, by and through Durham DSS v. Hodges, 257 N.C.App. 288, 298, 809 S.E.2d 317, 325 (2018) ("Since there is no evidence to support the required findings of fact, we need not remand for additional findings of fact.")



* * *



Legal issue Did the trial court err by applying a clear and convincing evidence standard instead of a preponderance of the evidence standard when determining the validity of a premarital agreement?

Headnote



FAMILY LAW. PREMARITAL AGREEMENTS. The case focuses on an appeal regarding the validity and enforceability of a premarital agreement, challenging the trial court's application of a clear and convincing evidence standard instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard in assessing the agreement's unconscionability.



CIVIL PROCEDURE. APPELLATE REVIEW STANDARD. The appeal examines whether the trial court erred by applying an incorrect standard of proof, leading to the decision to vacate and remand for application of the correct preponderance of the evidence standard.



Key Phrases Premarital Agreement. Clear and Convincing Evidence. Standard of Proof. Equitable Distribution. Procedurally or Substantively Unconscionable.

On 27 September 2023, the trial court entered a Judgment declaring the Premarital Agreement valid and enforceable. In the Judgment, after reciting its Findings of Fact, the trial court made the following Conclusion of Law: "The Plaintiff has not presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the validity of the premarital agreement executed by the Parties on July 11, 1997."



Vacated and remanded.