Blige v. Blige
Georgia Supreme Court
283 Ga. 65, 656 S.E.2d 822 (2008)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Meagan Blige (plaintiff) filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Willie Blige (defendant). The couple had never lived together prior to the marriage. The day before the wedding, Meagan reviewed and signed an antenuptial agreement in the presence of Willie and his attorney. The agreement provided that, upon a divorce, Willie would retain the 19.5 acres of land that he had previously purchased, along with any house subsequently constructed upon the land. However, Willie did not disclose to Meagan that he had hidden away $150,000 in cash to be used in building the home. During the marriage, Willie constructed a $280,000 home on the land. In his answer to Meagan’s divorce petition, Willie sought enforcement of the antenuptial agreement. Meagan moved to set the agreement aside based upon Willie’s failure to disclose the hidden cash. The trial court granted Meagan’s motion and found that Willie had failed to make a fair and clear disclosure of his income, assets, and liabilities to Meagan before the execution of the agreement. The trial court granted the divorce and awarded Meagan $160,000, representing her equitable interest in the marital home. Willie filed an application for discretionary review, which the Supreme Court of Georgia granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sears, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
