NRS123A.080Enforcement: Generally.

1.A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:

(a)That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily;

(b)The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed; or

(c)Before execution of the agreement, that party:

(1)Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(2)Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and

(3)Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.

2.If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates alimony or support or maintenance of a spouse, and that modification or elimination causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public assistance at the time of separation or marital dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility.

3.An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 1004)

"In this case Sogg v. Nevada State Bank, 108 Nev. 308, 832 P.2d 781 (1992). , the financial statement describing Paul's net worth was not attached to the agreement when Vicky signed it, although the agreement referred to this attachment. Paul testified that Vicky was familiar with his home, and that he had driven her around to see some of his other properties, although he had not told her their value. Although Vicky knew that Paul was wealthy, her testimony suggests that she underestimated the extent of his wealth. We conclude that Paul failed to make the disclosures necessary to permit Vicky to make an informed decision with respect to the premarital agreement, and that therefore, the agreement is invalid.

Because we conclude that the premarital agreement is invalid, we do not need to reach the issues arising from the second phase of the proceedings in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case with the instruction that it be retried before a different district court judge."

FIND and READ: a. NRS 123A.080 As you review this statute, do you see any problem with "vagueness" in the language? WHERE? Remember, "vagueness" involves a lack of detail or definition and can create problems because it is too general. b. Sogg v. Nevada State Bank, 108 Nev. 308, 832 P.2d 781 (1992). This case has one of the most colorful fact patterns you will ever read. It takes the language of the statute and expands and provides clarification, therefore it is a good illustration of how a statute and case can work together. 1. As you read it, explain how this case gives other subsequent courts guidance on how to apply NRS 123A.080 and evaluate the validity of a pre-marital agreement. 2. Do you think it clears up the vagueness presented in the statute?