O.C.G.A. § 19-3-63 (2019)

Annotations

Law reviews. For annual survey of law on domestic relations, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 105 (2010). For article, “Parentage Prenups and Midnups,” see 31 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 343 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Children provided for in settlement, when no words indicate different import are presumed children of marriage which gives occasion to the settlement. Knorr v. Raymond, 73 Ga. 749, 1884 Ga. LEXIS 219 (1884). Requirement for two signatures enforced. - In a divorce case in which a wife appealed the trial court’s denial of the wife’s motion for partial summary judgment on her claim that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable, the antenuptial agreement was a marriage contract pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-3-62(b), and the agreement was unenforceable since the agreement had only been signed by one witness, and O.C.G.A. § 19-3-63 required that every marriage contract in writing, made in contemplation of marriage, must be attested by at least two witnesses. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 286 Ga. 53, 684 S.E.2d 861, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 487 (2009). Parties’ premarital agreement, viewed as a whole, was a marriage contract made in contemplation of marriage, not a prenuptial agreement made in anticipation of divorce, and the trial court therefore correctly denied enforcement of the agreement due to noncompliance with the attestation requirement of O.C.G.A. § 19-363. Fox v. Fox, 291 Ga. 492, 731 S.E.2d 676, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 682 (2012). Attendant and surrounding circumstances may always be resorted to, and proof of the local usage or understanding of words is admissible to arrive at the meaning intended by the parties.

Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 301 (1885). Misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material fact. - Husband’s argument that an antenuptial agreement contained a severability clause and that, under O.C.G.A. § 13-1-8(a), the failure to abide by the portion of the agreement concerning attachment of lists showing property owned or held did not void the entire agreement was without merit; the trial court was not bound by the language of the agreement as to severability, but the question was whether there was a misrepresentation or nondisclosure of a material fact. Alexander v. Alexander, 279 Ga. 116, 610 S.E.2d 48, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 162 (2005). Intention of parties must be carried out even though court has to disregard rules of grammatical construction to effectuate the intent. Ardis v. Printup, 39 Ga. 648, 1869 Ga. LEXIS 256 (1869); Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210, 1885 Ga. LEXIS 301 (1885). Use of void antenuptial agreement. - Trial court committed reversible error by permitting testimony as to the contents of the parties antenuptial agreement into the final decree of divorce because that agreement had been previously ruled void and unenforceable, and the existence of the agreement and its contents were not to be considered by the fact-finder; hence, the matter was remanded for a new trial. Chubbuck v. Lake, 281 Ga. 218, 635 S.E.2d 764, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 651 (2006). Because a prenuptial agreement addressing alimony issues was not an agree-

ment made in contemplation of marriage, the trial court erred in ruling that O.C.G.A. § 19-3-63 applied; however, the criteria in Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635 (1982) was satisfied by the disclosure of the husband’s assets. Dove v. Dove, 285 Ga. 647, 680 S.E.2d 839, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 318 (2009). Contract made in contemplation of divorce, not marriage. - Trial court did not did not err in upholding the validity of an antenuptial agreement because

the agreement was not subject to the dual attestation requirement of O.C.G.A. § 193-63 when it was a contract made in contemplation of divorce, not a contract made in contemplation of marriage; the antenuptial agreement addressed alimony, and it referred explicitly to the possibility of divorce, explaining that the parties wanted the agreement to govern in that event. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 286 Ga. 309, 687 S.E.2d 421, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 685 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Husband and Wife, §§ 90, 103 et seq. C.J.S. 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, §§ 128, 129. ALR. Declaratory judgment, during lifetime of spouses, as to construction of antenuptial agreement dealing with property rights of survivor, 80 A.L.R.2d 941. Modern status of views as to validity of premarital agreements contemplating divorce and separation, 53 A.L.R.4th 22. Enforceability of premarital agree-

ments governing support or property rights upon divorce or separation as affected by circumstance surrounding execution - modern status, 53 A.L.R.4th 85. Enforceability of premarital agreements governing support or property rights upon divorce or separation as affected by fairness or adequacy of those terms - modern status, 53 A.L.R.4th 161. Failure to disclose extent or value of property owned as ground for avoiding premarital contract, 3 A.L.R.5th 394. Validity of postnuptial agreements in contemplation of spouse’s death, 87 A.L.R.6th 495.