Georgia has no square answer to this question. The one appellate case to take it up did not decide it.
What Happened in Alexander
In Alexander v. Alexander, 279 Ga. 116 (2005), the wife signed an antenuptial agreement four days before the wedding, without a lawyer, after her husband told her one was unnecessary. The agreement waived alimony and any interest in his property, and it “is silent concerning the possibility of children.” The couple had a child in 1998, and the wife stayed home to care for her.
When the husband later moved to enforce the agreement, the trial court refused on three separate grounds. One of them was that circumstances had changed “by virtue of the birth of the minor child.”
Why the Question Is Still Open
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, but only on a different ground – the husband’s failure to disclose a $40,000 investment account. Because each ground independently supported the trial court, the Court said “it is not necessary for this Court to address each of the three grounds.” So it never ruled on the birth of the child.
Two Justices then wrote separately to say the trial court had gotten that part wrong. In a concurrence joined by Justice Carley, then-Presiding Justice Sears wrote that “the mere fact that a child was born during the course of the marriage does not create a material change in circumstances that authorizes the nullification of an antenuptial agreement,” reasoning that support for a child is handled separately from what these agreements address.
A concurrence is not binding. So the argument remains available in Georgia, and it remains untested.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!