Standing Firm: Lance’s Fight for Fair Prenuptial Agreements

The narrative story of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1989).

When Lance Johnson* proposed to Mary McKee in 1980, he thought he was being responsible and transparent. Both were accomplished professionals in their late thirties with children from previous marriages and established careers. Lance, a successful attorney transitioning into real estate development, had built substantial wealth—about $1.4 million in assets compared to Mary’s $100,000. Given their circumstances, a prenuptial agreement seemed sensible to protect both their interests.

Lance didn’t hide his intentions or rush the process. He encouraged Mary multiple times to seek independent legal counsel, even offering to pay for her own attorney. When she declined, he suggested she consult with her brother, who was also a lawyer. Again, she refused. Despite her reluctance to get separate representation, Lance insisted they work with Larry Johnson, an experienced estate planning attorney from the prestigious Dorsey and Whitney firm.

The process was thorough and transparent. Lance provided complete financial disclosure, detailing every asset and liability. Mary received a draft of the agreement ten days before their wedding, giving her time to review it and make notes. When they met with Larry Johnson, the attorney specifically advised Mary of her right to independent counsel and even withdrew from the room so she could speak privately with him. Mary asked questions, requested changes to language about joint property, and received detailed explanations about what the agreement meant.

Despite all these precautions, when their marriage ended in divorce seven years later, Mary challenged the prenuptial agreement. The trial court ruled that any provisions dealing with marital property—assets acquired during the marriage—were automatically void and unenforceable. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, essentially declaring that prenuptial agreements could only cover property owned before marriage.

For Lance, this ruling felt like a betrayal of fundamental principles. He had acted in good faith, provided full disclosure, encouraged independent counsel, and followed every procedural safeguard. More importantly, the lower courts’ interpretation would effectively eliminate prenuptial agreements as a meaningful planning tool for couples with significant assets or earning potential.

Lance decided to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, knowing the case would set important precedent for family law across the state. The stakes were high—not just for his own financial interests, but for the principle that competent adults should be free to make binding agreements about their property.

The Supreme Court’s decision vindicated Lance’s position completely. In a comprehensive ruling, the court found that Lance had met all requirements for procedural fairness. The justices noted that he had provided “full and complete disclosure of earnings, property, or financial condition” and that Mary had been “afforded, and rejected, the opportunity to receive independent advice.”

Most significantly, the court rejected the lower courts’ interpretation that prenuptial agreements covering marital property were automatically void. Instead, the Supreme Court held that such agreements were valid under Minnesota common law, provided they met standards of both procedural and substantive fairness.

For Lance, the victory represented more than personal vindication. The McKee-Johnson v. Johnson decision established a clear two-part test for evaluating prenuptial agreements: procedural fairness and substantive fairness. This framework would guide Minnesota courts for decades, providing certainty for couples who wanted to plan their financial futures together.

Lance’s persistence in fighting for the validity of his carefully crafted agreement had not only protected his own interests but preserved an important legal tool for other couples facing similar circumstances.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: What makes a prenuptial agreement legally valid in Minnesota?

Answer: A prenuptial agreement is valid if it meets both procedural fairness (proper process) and substantive fairness (fair terms) requirements under Minnesota law.

As per Minnesota Statute section 519.11, an antenuptial agreement (commonly known as a prenuptial agreement) is valid and enforceable if it meets both procedural and substantive fairness requirements. The procedural fairness requirements are specifically outlined in subdivision 1b of the statute. As stated in Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(a): “Two individuals of legal age may enter into an antenuptial agreement prior to the solemnization of marriage which shall be valid and enforceable if the agreement meets the procedural and substantive fairness requirements under subdivisions 1b and 1c.”

Question: What does “full and fair disclosure” mean for prenuptial agreements?

Answer: Full and fair disclosure means each person must provide accurate information about their income and property values, and explain how they came up with those numbers.

Focusing on procedural fairness, Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(a) defines “full and fair disclosure” as follows: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘full and fair disclosure’ means that each party has provided a reasonably accurate description of all material facts of their income and good faith estimates of the value of their property and discloses the basis for these disclosures. A party must not waive the full and fair disclosure requirement under paragraph (b), clause (1).”

Question: What are the five requirements for a prenuptial agreement to be procedurally fair?

Answer: The five requirements are: full financial disclosure, opportunity for independent lawyers, proper written format with witnesses and notarization, voluntary agreement without pressure, and signing at least seven days before the wedding.

The statute then explicitly lists the criteria for procedural fairness in Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(b): “An antenuptial agreement is procedurally fair if:

1. there is full and fair disclosure of the current income and property of each party;
2. each party has had a meaningful opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel of the party’s choosing;
3. the agreement is in writing, executed in the presence of two witnesses, and acknowledged by the parties before a person authorized to administer an oath under the laws of this state;
4. the agreement is entered into voluntarily and free of duress; and
5. the agreement is entered into and executed no less than seven days before the marriage.”

Question: What happens if you sign a prenuptial agreement less than seven days before your wedding?

Answer: If you sign less than seven days before the wedding, the agreement isn’t automatically assumed to be valid, and the person trying to enforce it has to prove it’s fair.

Additionally, the statute addresses presumptions of enforceability and burdens of proof in Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(c): “An agreement entered into and executed at least seven days before the date of marriage is presumed enforceable and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to set aside the agreement. An agreement that is entered into and executed less than seven days before the marriage is not presumed enforceable, and the proponent of the agreement has the burden of proof.”

Question: Can a power of attorney be used instead of proper witnessing and notarization?

Answer: No, a power of attorney cannot substitute for the requirement that the agreement be signed in front of two witnesses and acknowledged before someone authorized to give oaths.

Finally, Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(d) clarifies a limitation: “A power of attorney does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b), clause (3).”

Question: What does it mean when an agreement is “duly acknowledged and attested”?

Answer: When an agreement is properly acknowledged and witnessed, it serves as strong evidence that the matters stated in the agreement are true.

Note that the statute also emphasizes in Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(d) that “An agreement duly acknowledged and attested is prima facie proof of the matters acknowledged in the agreement,” which ties into the procedural elements. Furthermore, subd. 6 states that “This section applies to all antenuptial and postnuptial agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024.” If an agreement fails to meet these procedural fairness requirements, it may be deemed unenforceable, though the court could potentially sever unenforceable provisions if the agreement allows for it under subd. 1(e): “If an antenuptial agreement unambiguously permits severability, the court may sever any unenforceable provision and enforce the remaining provisions of the agreement.”