Prenuptial agreements can become a major source of conflict during a divorce—especially if one spouse later feels the agreement was unfair or wasn’t handled properly when it was signed. In the case of Harill v. Harill, the Indiana Court of Appeals took another look at these kinds of disputes. The court reaffirmed the rules Indiana follows when someone challenges a prenup and clarified what it actually takes to have one thrown out under state law. 

Background of the case

Before getting married, the couple signed a prenuptial agreement that laid out how their assets would be divided in the event of a divorce. But when the marriage eventually ended, things didn’t go smoothly. Disagreements came up—especially around how their property and finances should be split. 

As part of her appeal, the wife argued that the trial court never should have enforced the prenup in the first place, saying it was unfair, or what the law calls unconscionable.

The case ended up going to the Indiana Court of Appeals, where the wife challenged the validity of the agreement as part of a larger fight over the final terms of the divorce. 

Legal standing for contesting a prenup in Indiana

In Indiana, the rules for whether a prenuptial agreement holds up in court come from the Premarital Agreement Act. According to state law (Indiana Code § 31-11-3-8), a prenup can be thrown out if it is unconscionable. In other words, the agreement was extremely unfair at the time it was signed. It can be ruled unenforceable if certain legal requirements weren’t met, like both people signing voluntarily or fully disclosing their finances.

One key point: Indiana courts treat the question of whether an agreement is unconscionable as a legal issue, but that decision depends on the facts the trial court finds. So when a case is appealed, the facts are reviewed to see if there was a clear error, while the legal conclusions (like whether the agreement was enforceable) are reviewed with fresh eyes, known as a de novo review. 

The court’s analysis

In Harill, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the relevant inquiry is whether the agreement was unconscionable when it was signed—not whether it later seemed unfair in hindsight. The court noted that Indiana law allows adults to enter into agreements that may favor one spouse over the other, as long as the agreement was knowingly and voluntarily executed and did not shock the conscience at the time of signing. 

The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the prenup. Based on those findings, the court concluded that the agreement met statutory requirements and was not unconscionable when executed. 

As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed enforcement of the premarital agreement.

Talk to a Danville, IN, Family Law Attorney Today

Chris Arrington represents the interests of Danville residents who want to draft a prenuptial agreement or divorce. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.