Standing Strong Against Pressure: Michelle’s Fight for Fair Treatment in Marriage

The narrative story of Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018).

When Michelle Beth Kremer* met Robbie in the late 1990s, she thought she had found a partner who would respect her contributions and treat her as an equal. She was a devoted mother of three children from a previous marriage, and when she and Robbie decided to build a life together on his farm in Fulda, Minnesota, she threw herself wholeheartedly into supporting their shared future.

For nearly three years, Michelle and Robbie lived together as a couple, with Michelle contributing to the farming operation while caring for her children and maintaining their household. When they decided to marry in August 2000 and planned a destination wedding in the Cayman Islands for March 2001, Michelle looked forward to formalizing their commitment and building their family together.

But Robbie had mentioned early in their relationship that he would require an antenuptial agreement if they ever married. Michelle felt ambivalent about such an arrangement – she believed that marriage should be a partnership of equals, not a business transaction designed to protect one person’s assets from the other. Still, she loved Robbie and was willing to discuss reasonable terms that would be fair to both of them.

What Michelle didn’t know was that Robbie had no intention of negotiating with her or treating her as an equal partner in this decision. Without telling her, he contacted an attorney and spent over a month crafting an agreement that would protect all of his assets while leaving Michelle with virtually nothing if their marriage ended. He even provided the attorney with copies of Michelle’s tax returns without her knowledge or consent.

On February 26, 2001 – just three days before they were scheduled to leave for their wedding in the Cayman Islands – Robbie presented Michelle with a fait accompli. He had already signed the antenuptial agreement and made it clear that if she didn’t sign it, the wedding was off. Family members had already paid for lodging and airfare to the destination wedding, and some were already en route.

Michelle found herself in an impossible situation. The man she loved and trusted had deliberately created a crisis that left her with no real choice. She scrambled to find legal counsel, first attempting unsuccessfully to meet with the attorney who had represented her in her previous divorce. With time running out, she managed to meet with a different attorney on February 28 – the day before their departure.

The attorney explained the harsh terms of the agreement: Michelle would waive all rights to alimony or maintenance, and any assets acquired during the marriage would be divided only in proportion to the monetary consideration each party provided. Given that Robbie owned significant farming assets while Michelle had very little, this meant she could contribute years of labor to their marriage and farming operation but would leave with virtually nothing if the marriage ended.

Despite understanding how unfair the agreement was, Michelle felt she had no choice but to sign. The wedding was the next day, family and friends were already traveling to the Cayman Islands, and Robbie had made it clear that he would call off the wedding if she refused. Under this extreme pressure, Michelle signed the agreement, and they left for their wedding.

For nearly a decade, Michelle lived under the terms of this agreement, contributing to Robbie’s farming operation, maintaining their household, and caring for their child born in 2008. The value of the farming operation increased significantly during their marriage, but Michelle knew that under the antenuptial agreement, she would receive virtually nothing for her contributions if the marriage ended.

When their marriage began to fail in 2010, Michelle faced a difficult decision. She could accept the unfair terms of the agreement and walk away from years of contributions to their shared life, or she could fight for fair treatment. Michelle chose to stand up for herself and challenge the agreement in court.

The legal battle that followed was about more than just money – it was about whether someone could use manipulation, pressure, and unfair tactics to force their partner into an unconscionable agreement. Michelle’s case was particularly significant because their antenuptial agreement was executed after August 1, 1979, when Minnesota enacted new statutory protections for antenuptial agreements.

The 1979 watershed moment was crucial to Michelle’s case. Before 1979, all antenuptial agreements in Minnesota were governed solely by common law, which required agreements to be both procedurally and substantively fair. In 1979, the Legislature enacted Minnesota Statute § 519.11, creating a “safe harbor” for antenuptial agreements that met certain procedural requirements – specifically, full financial disclosure and the opportunity to consult with independent counsel. However, this safe harbor was designed primarily to protect agreements dealing with nonmarital property and make them harder to challenge.

Michelle’s agreement, executed in 2001, fell into a complex legal category. While it was drafted after 1979, it addressed both marital and nonmarital property in ways that made it difficult to determine which provisions qualified for the statutory safe harbor. This meant that the entire agreement had to be evaluated under the common law procedural fairness test established in In re Estate of Kinney.

The district court found that the agreement was procedurally unfair, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. When Robbie appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Michelle knew she was fighting not just for herself, but for the principle that marriage should be a partnership built on mutual respect and fair dealing, not coercion and manipulation.

In May 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court vindicated Michelle’s position in Kremer v. Kremer. The court held that the antenuptial agreement was invalid because it lacked adequate consideration and was procured by duress. The court recognized that while the agreement appeared equitable on its face – with both parties waiving rights to each other’s property – the circumstances revealed that the terms were “patently one-sided.”

The Supreme Court found that Michelle had contributed significantly to Robbie’s farming operation throughout their marriage, maintained their household, and cared for their child, yet would leave the marriage with very little if the agreement were enforced. The court also found that Robbie had procured the agreement through duress by deliberately creating a situation where Michelle was “pressured/coerced” into signing, using the wedding deadline to destroy her free will and ability to make a truly voluntary decision.

Michelle’s victory in Kremer v. Kremer established important precedent that protects people from being coerced into unfair antenuptial agreements. The decision clarified that Minnesota now has separate procedural fairness tests for different types of antenuptial agreements: those covering only nonmarital property drafted after August 1, 1979, are subject to the statutory requirements in section 519.11, while agreements covering marital property or drafted before 1979 are subject to the more comprehensive common law factors established in Kinney.

Through her courage to challenge an unfair agreement, Michelle helped ensure that future spouses cannot be manipulated into unconscionable arrangements through pressure tactics and artificial deadlines. Her case stands as a testament to the principle that true partnership in marriage requires mutual respect, fair dealing, and genuine choice – not coercion disguised as love.

Minnesota now has separate procedural fairness tests for antenuptial agreements: those covering marital property or drafted before August 1, 1979, are subject to common law factors, while agreements addressing only nonmarital property and drafted after 1979 are subject to statutory requirements, as established in Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018).

*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 are the procedural fairness requirements for a postnuptial agreement?

Answer: Postnuptial agreements must meet all the same procedural fairness requirements as prenuptial agreements, plus each spouse must have their own lawyer when signing. If signed close to separation or divorce, the agreement is presumed invalid unless proven fair.

Postnuptial agreements, contracts executed after marriage that affect the spouses’ property or maintenance rights, are governed by Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1d. To be valid, a postnuptial agreement must satisfy all the requirements of an antenuptial agreement and, additionally, each spouse must be represented by separate legal counsel at the time of execution. The statute presumes that a postnuptial agreement is unenforceable if it is executed within two years after one spouse commences an action for legal separation or dissolution; the spouse seeking enforcement must prove that the agreement is fair and equitable both at the time of execution and enforcement. Courts also consider whether the parties made full and fair disclosure and whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily. See Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617, 624–26 (Minn. 2018) (applying the common-law fairness test to a postnuptial agreement executed before the statute’s amendment). Because postnuptial agreements are executed when the parties already owe each other fiduciary duties, courts scrutinize them closely for fairness and voluntariness.

Question: What are the substantive fairness requirements for an antenuptial agreement to be enforceable?

Answer: Even if the process was fair, the agreement must also be fair in its terms—not leaving one spouse destitute or unfairly benefiting the other.

Even if the procedural prerequisites are met, an antenuptial agreement must be substantively fair. Under Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c, an agreement is substantively fair if its terms are not unconscionable at the time of enforcement. The statute makes clear that deviations from statutory marital property division or spousal maintenance provisions do not, by themselves, render an agreement unconscionable. Courts assess fairness by considering the parties’ relative bargaining power, their understanding of the agreement, and the economic impact on each party. Minnesota case law prior to the statutory amendment required courts to evaluate fairness both at the time of execution and at the time of enforcement, particularly if the parties’ circumstances changed significantly. See McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 270–71 (Minn. 1989) (invalidating an agreement that left one spouse virtually destitute while the other enjoyed substantial wealth); In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118, 124–25 (Minn. 2007) (upholding an agreement where the challenging party failed to prove unconscionability); Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617, 625–27 (Minn. 2018) (reaffirming that an agreement may be invalidated if unforeseen circumstances render it unreasonable and unfair). The party seeking to set aside an agreement bears the burden of proving substantive unfairness. In practice, courts are reluctant to disturb agreements reached with full disclosure and counsel, but they will invalidate provisions that leave one spouse impoverished or that were obtained by fraud or duress.