Standing Up for What’s Right: When Fairness Prevails Over Unfair Agreements

A Narrative Story of In re Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 429 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)

Mary McKee-Johnson* stared at the prenuptial agreement her husband had asked her to sign just weeks before their wedding in 1980. The document seemed straightforward enough—it would protect the property each of them owned before marriage. But buried in the legal language was something that made her uncomfortable: a clause that would prevent her from receiving any share of the wealth they might build together during their marriage.

“I felt pressured,” Mary later recalled. “We were so close to the wedding, and Lance was insistent that this was just a formality. I trusted him, and I didn’t want to create conflict right before we started our life together.”

For seven years, Mary and Lance built what appeared to be a successful marriage. Mary took a leave from her career as a Program Director for community colleges’ nursing programs to care for their son Daniel during his first eighteen months. Even after returning to work, she remained Daniel’s primary caretaker, preparing his meals, handling his medical care, arranging his social activities, and managing the countless daily tasks that come with raising a child.

During those same years, the couple accumulated substantial wealth of over $500,000 in property, retirement plans, partnerships, stocks, and cash. Mary had contributed not just through her career, but through her role as the family’s foundation, allowing Lance to focus on building his business and legal practice.

When their marriage ended in 1987, Mary faced a devastating reality. Lance wanted to enforce the prenuptial agreement, which would leave her with virtually nothing from the wealth they had built together over seven years. Despite her contributions to their family and their financial success, the agreement would treat her as if she had been merely a bystander in their marriage.

“I felt betrayed and scared,” Mary said. “I had given up career opportunities to raise our son and support Lance’s ambitions. Now I was facing the possibility of starting over with nothing, while he kept everything we had worked for together.”

The custody battle added another layer of stress. While Lance sought joint physical custody, Mary knew she had been Daniel’s primary parent throughout his life. She had been the one waking up with him at night, taking him to doctor appointments, and managing his daily care and development.

“I was fighting for two things that mattered most to me,” Mary reflected. “I wanted to protect Daniel’s stability, and I wanted the court to recognize that our marriage had been a partnership, regardless of what that prenuptial agreement said.”

When the case went to court, Mary felt a mixture of anxiety and determination. She presented extensive evidence of her role as Daniel’s primary caretaker and her contributions to the family’s success. Her legal team argued that the prenuptial agreement’s provisions regarding marital property were invalid under Minnesota law.

The court’s decision brought Mary the validation she had desperately needed. The judge found that she had indeed been Daniel’s primary caretaker and awarded her physical custody, with a generous visitation schedule that recognized Lance’s importance in Daniel’s life. Even more significantly, the court ruled that the prenuptial agreement could not prevent her from receiving her fair share of the marital property they had accumulated together.

“When I heard the judge’s ruling, I felt this incredible sense of relief,” Mary said. “It wasn’t just about the money. It was about the court recognizing that I had been a full partner in our marriage and that my contributions mattered.”

The court awarded Mary 40% of the marital property, acknowledging both her contributions and Lance’s business expertise. The judge also ordered Lance to pay $500 per month in child support, ensuring that Daniel would continue to enjoy the standard of living he had known during the marriage.

“The ruling gave me more than financial security,” Mary concluded. “It gave me back my sense of worth and the confidence that fairness still matters. Daniel and I could move forward knowing that the court had recognized the truth about our family and protected our future.”

*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: How do I change or cancel a prenuptial agreement in Minnesota?

Answer: You need to create a new written agreement after marriage that follows specific legal rules, including having witnesses, getting it notarized, and both spouses having their own lawyers. Read the answers below for a full understanding.

To ensure the modification or revocation a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement is enforceable, we must first take note the requirements outlined here apply to antenuptial and postnuptial agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024, per Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 6. Agreements executed before this date are governed by prior versions of the statute and may not be invalidated based on the parties being of the same sex.

Question: What kind of new agreement do I need to change my prenup?

Answer: Any changes to a prenuptial agreement must be made through a new postnuptial agreement that is properly signed and witnessed. Even when altering a prenuptial agreement, the modification or revocation must be executed as a postnuptial agreement. See Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 2a. It must be in writing, signed by both parties in the presence of two witnesses, and acknowledged before a notary or authorized official. See § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(3).

Question: Do we have to share our financial information when changing our prenup?

Answer: Yes, both spouses must provide accurate information about their income and property values, and this requirement cannot be skipped. Each spouse must provide a reasonably accurate description of income, property values, and the basis for those values; this disclosure requirement cannot be waived. See § 519.11, subd. 1b(a). Failure can invalidate the agreement, as in Rudbeck v. Rudbeck, 365 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

Question: Do we both need our own lawyers to change our prenup?

Answer: Yes, both spouses must have their own separate lawyers when creating a postnuptial agreement to change or cancel a prenup. Postnuptial agreements mandate independent counsel for both spouses at execution. See § 519.11, subd. 1d(c). This supports informed consent and reduces coercion claims, consistent with the procedural-fairness emphasis in McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1989).

Question: Can someone force me to sign changes to our prenup?

Answer: No, you must sign the new agreement freely without anyone pressuring or forcing you to do it. The agreement must be entered into freely, without coercion or undue influence. See § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(4). Courts scrutinize power imbalances; In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007), underscores the need for voluntary consent with adequate knowledge.

Question: Do the terms of our new agreement have to be fair?

Answer: Yes, the agreement must be fair both when you sign it and later when it might be used in court. The terms must not be unconscionable at execution or enforcement, taking into account unforeseen changes in circumstances. See § 519.11, subd. 1c(a). Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018), illustrates invalidation for inequitable terms after changed circumstances and informed the 2024 amendments clarifying fairness standards.

Question: What happens if we get divorced soon after changing our prenup?

Answer: If you file for divorce within two years of signing the new agreement, the court will assume it’s not valid unless you can prove it’s fair. If dissolution or legal separation is sought within two years of executing the postnuptial, the agreement is presumed unenforceable unless the proponent proves it is fair and equitable. See § 519.11, subd. 1d(d). This presumption applies to modifications or revocations executed as postnups.

Question: How should we word our new agreement about changing the old one?

Answer: The new agreement should clearly state whether you’re changing specific parts or completely getting rid of the entire original prenup. The new postnuptial should specify whether it modifies particular provisions or revokes the entire prior agreement. Include a severability clause so valid terms survive if others are struck. See § 519.11, subd. 1(e).

Question: What things can’t we include in our new agreement?

Answer: You cannot include rules about child custody or child support in your agreement, but you can address property and spousal support. Do not address child custody or child support—those are governed by the child’s best interests and separate statutes. The agreement may address property, spousal maintenance, and estate rights. See § 519.11, subd. 1d(b) & subd. 1(b); see also Minn. Stat. § 518.17.

Question: What are the important Considerations for Minnesota prenuptial postnuptial law, especially given the 2024 statute revision?

Answer: These are the seven key takeaways:

• Procedural compliance is critical. In Rudbeck, inadequate disclosure invalidated the agreement; McKee-Johnson highlights access to counsel and voluntary execution—principles equally applicable to postnuptial modifications.
• Substantive fairness over time. Kremer and In re Marriage of Bednar v. Bednar (Minn. Ct. App. 2024) show courts assess fairness at execution and enforcement. A term that becomes unconscionable due to changed circumstances (health, finances) risks invalidation. In Bednar, the appellate court upheld a prenup despite changed circumstances, emphasizing proper valuation dates and lack of duress, and reversed the district court’s invalidation.
• Fiduciary duty in postnups. Spouses owe fiduciary duties during marriage, so postnups face stricter scrutiny. Kinney stresses the need to prove no undue influence—especially when modifying or revoking terms affecting marital property.
• Engage separate counsel. Both parties should retain independent family-law attorneys to draft/review the postnuptial in compliance with § 519.11, subd. 1d(c).
• Document disclosures. Keep detailed records (income statements, asset schedules, valuation reports) to prove statutory compliance.
• Plan timing. Execute well before any contemplated dissolution to avoid the two-year presumption of unenforceability, § 519.11, subd. 1d(d).
• Stress-test for equity. Anticipate changes (health, income, business events) and ensure terms remain fair; courts may void provisions that become unconscionable (Kremer, Bednar).