Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealburden of proofwill
contractappellant

Related Cases

In re Estate of Gassmann, 867 N.W.2d 325, 2015 ND 188
View Case »
Cavanaugh v. Davis, 149 Tex. 573, 235 S.W.2d 972
View Case »
Holmes v. Village of Hoffman Estate, 511 F.3d 673
View Case »
Byrnes v. Stilwell, 58 Sickels 453, 103 N.Y. 453, 9 N.E. 241
View Case »
National Shawmut Bank of Boston v. Morey, 320 Mass. 492, 70 N.E.2d 316, 174 A.L.R. 871
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Greiff, 92 N.Y.2d 341, 703 N.E.2d 752, 680 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 09251

Facts

Helen Greiff married Herman Greiff in 1988, both being in their later years. They had reciprocal prenuptial agreements waiving their statutory rights against each other's estates. After Herman's death, his will left everything to his children from a prior marriage, prompting Helen to seek her statutory elective share. The Surrogate's Court found that Herman had undue influence over Helen when the agreements were signed, leading to their invalidation.

Appellant Helen Greiff married Herman Greiff in 1988 when they were 65 and 77 years of age, respectively. They had entered into reciprocal prenuptial agreements in which each expressed the usual waiver of the statutory right of election as against the estate of the other.

Issue

Whether the special relationship between betrothed parties can shift the burden of persuasion regarding the legality and enforceability of a prenuptial agreement.

A party challenging the judicial interposition of a prenuptial agreement, used to defeat a right of election, may demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the premarital relationship between the contracting individuals manifested 'probable' undue and unfair advantage.

Rule

A party challenging a prenuptial agreement may demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the relationship between the parties manifested probable undue and unfair advantage, shifting the burden to the proponent of the agreement to show freedom from fraud, deception, or undue influence.

In these exceptional circumstances, the burden should fall on the proponent of the prenuptial agreement to show freedom from fraud, deception or undue influence.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding the burden of proof in cases involving prenuptial agreements. The Surrogate's Court had established that Herman Greiff was in a position of influence over Helen, which warranted a shift in the burden of proof to him to demonstrate that the agreements were entered into freely and without undue influence.

The reversal by the Appellate Division of the Surrogate's Court's decree reflects a misapprehension of governing law, in that the Appellate Division reached its conclusion without factoring or finding facts relevant to fixing the evidentiary burden for this kind of case.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision and remitted the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for a proper evaluation of the relationship between the parties at the time the prenuptial agreements were executed.

We now reverse.

Who won?

Helen Greiff prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, stating that the Appellate Division misapplied the law regarding the burden of proof in prenuptial agreement disputes.

The Appellate Division's approach here did not allow for the calibration and application of these legal principles.

You must be