South Carolina Prenup Laws: When Are Prenups Invalid?

• View Larger Image

South Carolina Prenup Laws: When Are Prenups Invalid?

South Carolina Prenup Laws: When Are Prenups Invalid?
Prenuptial agreements can be powerful tools for protecting assets and clarifying financial expectations before marriage. However, not all prenuptial agreements will hold up in court. The South Carolina Court of Appeals case Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 612 S.E.2d 469 (2005), provides crucial insight into when a premarital agreement may be deemed unenforceable due to duress and unconscionability.

The Holler Case: A Cautionary Tale
Background Facts
Nataliya Holler, a Ukrainian woman who taught college in her home country, met her future husband William through correspondence. After communicating for about a year, she traveled to the United States in September 1997 to marry him. At the time of her arrival, Nataliya’s English was admittedly “really poor,” though she later completed an English course in May 1998.

The circumstances surrounding the prenuptial agreement raised significant concerns:

Nataliya became pregnant in October or November 1997
Her visa was set to expire on December 4, 1997
She had no money and relied entirely on William for support
She received the agreement only two weeks before signing it
She attempted to translate portions into Russian but became frustrated and quit after 11 pages
She had no funds to hire an attorney to review the agreement
She signed the agreement on November 30, 1997
The couple married on December 1, 1997—just three days before her visa would expire

When the couple later separated and Nataliya sought divorce, alimony, and equitable distribution, William moved to dismiss her claims based on the prenuptial agreement. The family court ruled the agreement was invalid and unenforceable.

South Carolina Law on Prenuptial Agreements
General Enforceability Standards
In South Carolina, prenuptial agreements are generally enforceable if they meet certain requirements. As the South Carolina Supreme Court explained in Stork v. First National Bank, 281 S.C. 515, 316 S.E.2d 400 (1984), antenuptial agreements “will be enforced if made voluntarily and in good faith and if fair and equitable.”

The consideration for a prenuptial agreement is the marriage itself. These agreements are executory in nature—they only become effective upon marriage.

Three-Part Test for Enforcement
The South Carolina Supreme Court in Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (2003), established a three-part test for determining whether a premarital agreement should be enforced:

1. Was the agreement obtained through fraud, duress, or mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts?
2. Is the agreement unconscionable?
3. Have the facts and circumstances changed since the agreement was executed, so as to make its enforcement unfair and unreasonable?

If any of these questions is answered affirmatively, the agreement may be unenforceable.

Why the Holler Agreement Failed: Duress
What Constitutes Duress?
Duress is defined as a condition of mind produced by improper external pressure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes them to do an act not of their own volition. To establish duress, three elements must be proven:

1. Coercion
2. The coercion put the person in such fear that they were bereft of the quality of mind essential to making a contract
3. The contract was obtained as a result of this state of mind

Importantly, South Carolina applies a subjective test for duress, which considers the individual characteristics of the person allegedly influenced, including their age, capacity, and circumstances.

Duress in the Holler Case
The Court of Appeals found ample evidence of duress based on the totality of circumstances:

Language Barriers: Nataliya did not understand the contents of the agreement. She attempted to translate it into Russian but became frustrated and gave up. Her notes showed she couldn’t find translations for critical legal terms like “undivided,” “equitable,” and “pro rata.”

Time Pressure: The visa deadline created an urgent situation. William made it clear that Nataliya had to sign the agreement if she wanted to marry before her visa expired. She had only two weeks to review the agreement before signing, and married just three days before deportation.

Financial Dependence: Nataliya was in the United States with no means to support herself and relied solely on William for support. She had no money to hire an attorney or translator to review the agreement.

Pregnancy: Nataliya was pregnant with William’s child, adding another layer of pressure to remain in the United States and secure his continued support.

Lack of Independent Counsel: The absence of independent legal advice is a significant consideration in evaluating whether an agreement was voluntarily and understandingly made.
The court concluded that Nataliya “did not enter into the agreement freely and voluntarily” and that she signed “without a clear understanding of what she was signing.”

Why the Holler Agreement Failed: Unconscionability
Defining Unconscionability
Unconscionability exists when there is “the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them.”
Courts examine the facts and circumstances existing at the time the contract was executed, not at the time of enforcement.

Unconscionable Provisions in Holler
The Court of Appeals identified several unconscionable aspects of the agreement:

Unequal Treatment of Contributions: The agreement provided that William would receive a proportionate interest in any increase in the home’s value based on his contributions to household expenses and childcare/household duties. However, the agreement contained no similar provision for Nataliya’s contributions through childcare or household duties.

Misrepresentation of Financial Circumstances: The agreement stated that each party had “income from property interest sufficient to provide for his or her respective support” and that both parties were “capable of future self-support.” This was demonstrably false. At the time of signing:

William had a net worth exceeding $150,000 with $30,000 in annual income
Nataliya had $0.00 in assets and $0.00 net worth
William was providing all of Nataliya’s support
William knew Nataliya would have to return to Ukraine without independent financial support

The stark financial disparity, combined with the one-sided terms and false representations about self-sufficiency, rendered the agreement unconscionable.

Practical Implications for South Carolina Couples
For Those Considering a Prenuptial Agreement
If you’re considering a prenuptial agreement in South Carolina, take these steps to maximize enforceability:

Allow Adequate Time: Don’t present an agreement weeks or days before the wedding. Ideally, begin discussions months in advance to avoid claims of duress based on time pressure.

Ensure Understanding: If your fiancé’s first language isn’t English, provide translations and allow time for them to understand the terms. Consider having the agreement translated by a professional.

Require Independent Counsel: Each party should have their own attorney review the agreement. This is one of the most important factors courts consider.

Full Financial Disclosure: Provide complete and accurate information about your assets, debts, income, and financial circumstances. Attach financial statements to the agreement.

Fair and Reasonable Terms: The agreement should not be so one-sided that it’s oppressive. Consider what a court might view as fair given the circumstances.

No Pressure Tactics: Don’t use visa deadlines, pregnancy, financial dependence, or other pressure points to force agreement. The person must sign voluntarily.

Avoid False Statements: Don’t include provisions claiming both parties are financially independent when one party is actually dependent on the other for support.

Red Flags That May Invalidate an Agreement
Watch for these warning signs that could lead a court to invalidate a prenuptial agreement:

One party doesn’t speak English well and the agreement isn’t translated
The agreement is presented close to the wedding date
One party has no independent income or assets
One party doesn’t have an attorney review the agreement
There’s a visa deadline, pregnancy, or other time pressure
The terms are extremely one-sided
The agreement contains false statements about financial circumstances
One party doesn’t understand what they’re signing

For Those Challenging an Existing Agreement
If you signed a prenuptial agreement under circumstances similar to those in Holler, you may have grounds to challenge its validity. Courts will consider:

Your understanding of the agreement at the time you signed it
Whether you had independent legal counsel
The timing of when you received and signed the agreement
Your financial circumstances and dependence on the other party
Any pressure tactics or deadlines involved
Whether the terms were fair and reasonable
The accuracy of financial disclosures

The Family Court’s Jurisdiction
An important procedural issue in Holler was whether the family court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the prenuptial agreement. William argued that Nataliya should have brought her action in circuit court because the agreement barred her from receiving alimony and designated property as nonmarital.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the family court has jurisdiction to review prenuptial agreements when they arise in the course of marital litigation. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420(2), the family court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear divorce actions and settle “all legal and equitable rights of the parties” related to marital property.

When a party asserts a prenuptial agreement as a defense to claims for alimony or equitable distribution, the family court must determine whether the agreement is valid and enforceable. This determination is within the family court’s jurisdiction.

Conclusion
The Holler case serves as an important reminder that prenuptial agreements must be entered into fairly, voluntarily, and with full understanding to be enforceable in South Carolina. While prenuptial agreements are generally favored and enforced, courts will not uphold agreements signed under duress or that are unconscionable.

If you’re considering a prenuptial agreement, take the time to do it right. Both parties should have independent legal counsel, full financial disclosure should be provided, adequate time should be allowed for review, and the terms should be fair and reasonable. These steps will help ensure that your agreement accomplishes its intended purpose and will be enforceable if ever challenged.

If you signed a prenuptial agreement under questionable circumstances, don’t assume you’re bound by its terms. Courts examine the totality of circumstances and may invalidate agreements that were obtained through improper pressure or that contain unconscionable provisions.

About Klok Law Firm LLC: Our Charleston-based family law practice represents clients throughout South Carolina in divorce, custody, alimony, equitable distribution, and other family court matters. We provide experienced guidance on prenuptial agreements, both in drafting enforceable agreements and in challenging agreements that may be invalid. Contact us for a consultation to discuss your family law needs.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique and depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Consult with a qualified family law attorney regarding your particular situation.

By Suzanne Klok|2025-11-12T16:12:33+00:00April 15th, 2023|Family Law, Prenuptial Agreement|Comments Off on South Carolina Prenup Laws: When Are Prenups Invalid?

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Suzanne Klok

Related Posts

What to Wear to South Carolina Family Court Hearings

South Carolina Rule 21 Updates 2025: Temporary Hearings

Passport Provisions in SC Custody Orders: Complete Guide for Parents

Answering Discovery in SC Family Court: What You Must Know

Supreme Court Clarifies “Timely” Rule 59(e) Motions in Family Court

South Carolina Prenup Laws: When Are Prenups Invalid?
Prenuptial agreements can be powerful tools for protecting assets and clarifying financial expectations before marriage. However, not all prenuptial agreements will hold up in court. The South Carolina Court of Appeals case Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 612 S.E.2d 469 (2005), provides crucial insight into when a premarital agreement may be deemed unenforceable due to duress and unconscionability.

The Holler Case: A Cautionary Tale
Background Facts
Nataliya Holler, a Ukrainian woman who taught college in her home country, met her future husband William through correspondence. After communicating for about a year, she traveled to the United States in September 1997 to marry him. At the time of her arrival, Nataliya’s English was admittedly “really poor,” though she later completed an English course in May 1998.

The circumstances surrounding the prenuptial agreement raised significant concerns:

Nataliya became pregnant in October or November 1997
Her visa was set to expire on December 4, 1997
She had no money and relied entirely on William for support
She received the agreement only two weeks before signing it
She attempted to translate portions into Russian but became frustrated and quit after 11 pages
She had no funds to hire an attorney to review the agreement
She signed the agreement on November 30, 1997
The couple married on December 1, 1997—just three days before her visa would expire

When the couple later separated and Nataliya sought divorce, alimony, and equitable distribution, William moved to dismiss her claims based on the prenuptial agreement. The family court ruled the agreement was invalid and unenforceable.

South Carolina Law on Prenuptial Agreements
General Enforceability Standards
In South Carolina, prenuptial agreements are generally enforceable if they meet certain requirements. As the South Carolina Supreme Court explained in Stork v. First National Bank, 281 S.C. 515, 316 S.E.2d 400 (1984), antenuptial agreements “will be enforced if made voluntarily and in good faith and if fair and equitable.”

The consideration for a prenuptial agreement is the marriage itself. These agreements are executory in nature—they only become effective upon marriage.

Three-Part Test for Enforcement
The South Carolina Supreme Court in Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (2003), established a three-part test for determining whether a premarital agreement should be enforced:

1. Was the agreement obtained through fraud, duress, or mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts?
2. Is the agreement unconscionable?
3. Have the facts and circumstances changed since the agreement was executed, so as to make its enforcement unfair and unreasonable?

If any of these questions is answered affirmatively, the agreement may be unenforceable.

Why the Holler Agreement Failed: Duress
What Constitutes Duress?
Duress is defined as a condition of mind produced by improper external pressure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes them to do an act not of their own volition. To establish duress, three elements must be proven:

1. Coercion
2. The coercion put the person in such fear that they were bereft of the quality of mind essential to making a contract
3. The contract was obtained as a result of this state of mind

Importantly, South Carolina applies a subjective test for duress, which considers the individual characteristics of the person allegedly influenced, including their age, capacity, and circumstances.

Duress in the Holler Case
The Court of Appeals found ample evidence of duress based on the totality of circumstances:

Language Barriers: Nataliya did not understand the contents of the agreement. She attempted to translate it into Russian but became frustrated and gave up. Her notes showed she couldn’t find translations for critical legal terms like “undivided,” “equitable,” and “pro rata.”

Time Pressure: The visa deadline created an urgent situation. William made it clear that Nataliya had to sign the agreement if she wanted to marry before her visa expired. She had only two weeks to review the agreement before signing, and married just three days before deportation.

Financial Dependence: Nataliya was in the United States with no means to support herself and relied solely on William for support. She had no money to hire an attorney or translator to review the agreement.

Pregnancy: Nataliya was pregnant with William’s child, adding another layer of pressure to remain in the United States and secure his continued support.

Lack of Independent Counsel: The absence of independent legal advice is a significant consideration in evaluating whether an agreement was voluntarily and understandingly made.
The court concluded that Nataliya “did not enter into the agreement freely and voluntarily” and that she signed “without a clear understanding of what she was signing.”

Why the Holler Agreement Failed: Unconscionability
Defining Unconscionability
Unconscionability exists when there is “the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them.”
Courts examine the facts and circumstances existing at the time the contract was executed, not at the time of enforcement.

Unconscionable Provisions in Holler
The Court of Appeals identified several unconscionable aspects of the agreement:

Unequal Treatment of Contributions: The agreement provided that William would receive a proportionate interest in any increase in the home’s value based on his contributions to household expenses and childcare/household duties. However, the agreement contained no similar provision for Nataliya’s contributions through childcare or household duties.

Misrepresentation of Financial Circumstances: The agreement stated that each party had “income from property interest sufficient to provide for his or her respective support” and that both parties were “capable of future self-support.” This was demonstrably false. At the time of signing:

William had a net worth exceeding $150,000 with $30,000 in annual income
Nataliya had $0.00 in assets and $0.00 net worth
William was providing all of Nataliya’s support
William knew Nataliya would have to return to Ukraine without independent financial support

The stark financial disparity, combined with the one-sided terms and false representations about self-sufficiency, rendered the agreement unconscionable.

Practical Implications for South Carolina Couples
For Those Considering a Prenuptial Agreement
If you’re considering a prenuptial agreement in South Carolina, take these steps to maximize enforceability:

Allow Adequate Time: Don’t present an agreement weeks or days before the wedding. Ideally, begin discussions months in advance to avoid claims of duress based on time pressure.

Ensure Understanding: If your fiancé’s first language isn’t English, provide translations and allow time for them to understand the terms. Consider having the agreement translated by a professional.

Require Independent Counsel: Each party should have their own attorney review the agreement. This is one of the most important factors courts consider.

Full Financial Disclosure: Provide complete and accurate information about your assets, debts, income, and financial circumstances. Attach financial statements to the agreement.

Fair and Reasonable Terms: The agreement should not be so one-sided that it’s oppressive. Consider what a court might view as fair given the circumstances.

No Pressure Tactics: Don’t use visa deadlines, pregnancy, financial dependence, or other pressure points to force agreement. The person must sign voluntarily.

Avoid False Statements: Don’t include provisions claiming both parties are financially independent when one party is actually dependent on the other for support.

Red Flags That May Invalidate an Agreement
Watch for these warning signs that could lead a court to invalidate a prenuptial agreement:

One party doesn’t speak English well and the agreement isn’t translated
The agreement is presented close to the wedding date
One party has no independent income or assets
One party doesn’t have an attorney review the agreement
There’s a visa deadline, pregnancy, or other time pressure
The terms are extremely one-sided
The agreement contains false statements about financial circumstances
One party doesn’t understand what they’re signing

For Those Challenging an Existing Agreement
If you signed a prenuptial agreement under circumstances similar to those in Holler, you may have grounds to challenge its validity. Courts will consider:

Your understanding of the agreement at the time you signed it
Whether you had independent legal counsel
The timing of when you received and signed the agreement
Your financial circumstances and dependence on the other party
Any pressure tactics or deadlines involved
Whether the terms were fair and reasonable
The accuracy of financial disclosures

The Family Court’s Jurisdiction
An important procedural issue in Holler was whether the family court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the prenuptial agreement. William argued that Nataliya should have brought her action in circuit court because the agreement barred her from receiving alimony and designated property as nonmarital.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the family court has jurisdiction to review prenuptial agreements when they arise in the course of marital litigation. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420(2), the family court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear divorce actions and settle “all legal and equitable rights of the parties” related to marital property.

When a party asserts a prenuptial agreement as a defense to claims for alimony or equitable distribution, the family court must determine whether the agreement is valid and enforceable. This determination is within the family court’s jurisdiction.

Conclusion
The Holler case serves as an important reminder that prenuptial agreements must be entered into fairly, voluntarily, and with full understanding to be enforceable in South Carolina. While prenuptial agreements are generally favored and enforced, courts will not uphold agreements signed under duress or that are unconscionable.

If you’re considering a prenuptial agreement, take the time to do it right. Both parties should have independent legal counsel, full financial disclosure should be provided, adequate time should be allowed for review, and the terms should be fair and reasonable. These steps will help ensure that your agreement accomplishes its intended purpose and will be enforceable if ever challenged.

If you signed a prenuptial agreement under questionable circumstances, don’t assume you’re bound by its terms. Courts examine the totality of circumstances and may invalidate agreements that were obtained through improper pressure or that contain unconscionable provisions.

About Klok Law Firm LLC: Our Charleston-based family law practice represents clients throughout South Carolina in divorce, custody, alimony, equitable distribution, and other family court matters. We provide experienced guidance on prenuptial agreements, both in drafting enforceable agreements and in challenging agreements that may be invalid. Contact us for a consultation to discuss your family law needs.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique and depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Consult with a qualified family law attorney regarding your particular situation.