DILLARD, C. J., DOYLE, P. J., and MERCIER, J.
Dillard, Chief Judge.
Robert Brantley, Sr. filed a complaint for divorce from Cyd
Oglesby Brantley, and shortly thereafter also filed a motion
to enforce an antenuptial agreement, under which the parties
waived any right to alimony. Cyd filed responsive pleadings,
and, subsequently, the trial court denied Robert's
motion. On appeal, Robert contends that the trial court erred
in applying an incorrect legal theory that resulted in it
ruling that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable. For
the reasons set forth infra, we agree. Accordingly,
we vacate the trial court's ruling and remand the case
for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.
Enforcement of an antenuptial agreement is "a matter of
public policy." In determining whether to enforce an
antenuptial agreement, the trial court has discretion to
"approve the agreement in whole or in part, or refuse to
approve it as a whole." Consequently, we evaluate a trial
court's ruling regarding the enforceability of an
antenuptial agreement under "the familiar abuse of
discretion standard of review." And under this standard, we
review "the trial court's legal holdings de novo,
and we uphold the trial court's factual findings as long
as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some
evidence in the record to support them."
viewed, the record shows that Robert and Cyd began dating in
1999. They were engaged to be married in 2002, and on
December 14, 2002, they jointly purchased a home, which
required them to provide their respective financial
information for the mortgage loan application. On December
27, 2002, three days before their wedding date, Robert and
Cyd executed an antenuptial agreement, which, inter
alia, provided that, in the event of divorce, both
parties waived any claims for alimony. In addition, the
agreement referenced attached financial disclosures from both
Robert and Cyd and further provided:
The parties agree and stipulate that each of them has made a
full and fair disclosure to the other of his or her current
financial worth and income. Further, both parties agree and
stipulate that they have reviewed Exhibits "A" and
"B" hereto, and, therefore, both parties are fully
acquainted with and are aware of the financial circumstances
of the other party.
on December 30, 2002, Robert and Cyd were married.
fourteen years later, on March 14, 2017, Robert filed a
complaint for divorce in the Superior Court of Meriwether
County, asserting that the marriage was irretrievably broken.
And several weeks later, following the filing of Cyd's
answer and counterclaim, Robert filed a motion to enforce the
antenuptial agreement. Cyd filed an initial response brief,
and both parties then exchanged reply briefs on the issue.
Ultimately, the trial court denied Robert's motion,
ruling that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable
because he failed to provide full disclosure of his income.
thereafter, Robert obtained a certificate of immediate review
and filed an application for interlocutory review, which this
Court granted. This appeal follows.
Robert contends that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to enforce the antenuptial agreement. Specifically,
Robert argues that the court applied an erroneous legal
theory in ruling that the antenuptial agreement was
unenforceable because he did not disclose his income within
the four corners of the agreement. We agree.
Scherer v. Scherer,  the Supreme Court of Georgia
established a three-part test for determining whether an
antenuptial agreement is enforceable:
(1) the antenuptial agreement was not the result of fraud,
duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of
material facts; (2) the agreement is not unconscionable; and
(3) taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances,
including changes beyond the parties' contemplation when
the agreement was executed, enforcement of the antenuptial
agreement would be neither unfair nor
first prong of the Scherer test, and the only prong
at issue here,  requires the party seeking enforcement to
"show both that there was a full and fair disclosure of
the assets of the parties prior to the execution of the
antenuptial agreement, and that the party opposing
enforcement entered into the agreement freely, voluntarily,
and with full understanding of its terms after being offered
the opportunity to consult with independent
counsel." And Georgia law, like that of virtually
every other state, imposes "an affirmative duty of
pre-execution disclosure on parties to an antenuptial
agreement." Indeed, mutual disclosure of the
material facts is "a precondition for entering into an
antenuptial agreement that accords with Georgia public
as previously noted, the antenuptial agreement referenced
attached financial disclosures from both the husband and
wife, which provided information regarding both parties'
current financial worth and income. Additionally, in support
of his motion to enforce the antenuptial agreement, Robert
claims that he disclosed his income on three separate forms
that were part of the loan application he and Cyd completed
prior to jointly purchasing their home. Robert further
contends that he verbally disclosed his income to Cyd prior
to their execution of the antenuptial agreement and that she
was aware of his financial status given ...