Elgar v. Elgar
Connecticut Supreme Court
679 A.2d 937 (1996)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 1988, Pamela Elgar (plaintiff) and George Elgar married in Connecticut. Pamela and George Elgar entered a prenuptial agreement in the week before their wedding in September 1988. At George Elgar’s insistence, both parties signed the agreement two days before the wedding. Prior to signing the prenuptial agreement, both parties had a brief consultation with Stephen J. Corriss, George Elgar’s attorney. Corriss reviewed the choice-of-law provision in the prenuptial agreement before the parties signed the agreement. George Elgar later died, and a probate trial court considered his estate. Eric Elgar, George Elgar’s son from a previous marriage, was named the executor of George Elgar’s estate (defendant). Eric Elgar entered the prenuptial agreement, and the probate court stripped Pamela of any interest in George Elgar’s estate as required by the prenuptial agreement. Pamela appealed the probate court order to the trial court. The attorney trial referee filed a report recommending judgment for Eric Elgar, as the executor of George Elgar’s estate. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of George. Pamela appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that the New York choice-of-law provision in the prenuptial agreement should not be applied because the clause was obtained by improper means and that even if the New York choice-of-law provision was valid, the agreement was unenforceable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Norcott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.