Background
Karann Steward and Robert Oury married in 1986 after signing a prenuptial agreement. The agreement broadly treated property acquired in either spouse’s individual name as nonmarital and limited Steward’s payment upon dissolution to $12,000 annually. At signing, Oury disclosed assets of about $6.8 million and a net worth exceeding $5.2 million, while Steward’s disclosed net worth was about $35,800. Steward, who was pregnant when she signed the agreement, later became a homemaker and worked intermittently.
In the dissolution case, Steward sought to invalidate the agreement. At age 70, she was unable to work because of a serious heart condition, received Social Security subject to garnishment, and had limited assets. The trial court voided the agreement, awarded indefinite maintenance of $4,410 monthly, and classified two townhomes, a 6.06-acre parcel held by a corporation formed during the marriage, and listed farm equipment as marital property. Oury appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed in full. Because the agreement predated the Illinois Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, common law governed. The court held that the agreement was neither fair nor reasonable and that enforcing it would leave Steward in penury. Under its terms, Steward would receive only $1,000 monthly and an interest in land encumbered by liens exceeding its value, despite her inability to work and lack of meaningful financial resources. The court also rejected Oury’s claim that Steward had accepted benefits under the agreement that barred her challenge.
The court upheld the maintenance award even though the trial court did not make all findings specified by section 504(b-2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The record permitted meaningful review: Steward’s monthly shortfall was $4,410, and Oury’s bank deposits averaged more than $19,000 monthly, supporting the court’s finding that his actual income exceeded his disclosures. The court further found no procedural due-process violation and held that the marital-property classifications were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A pre-1990 Illinois prenuptial agreement may be unenforceable when it is not fair and reasonable and would leave a spouse in penury.
- A maintenance award need not be reversed solely for incomplete statutory findings when the record adequately supports appellate review.
- Property acquired during marriage is presumed marital; unsupported testimony about separate ownership may not overcome that presumption.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that longstanding premarital agreements remain subject to Illinois common-law safeguards, particularly where a financially dependent and unemployable spouse would be left without a meaningful settlement after a lengthy marriage.
It also underscores the importance of developing a complete record and objecting contemporaneously to trial procedures. Oury’s agreement to proceed with merits evidence before a ruling on the prenup foreclosed his later due-process challenge.