Sogg v. Nevada State Bank
Nevada Supreme Court
108 Nev. 308, 832 P.2d 781 (1992)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Victoria Sogg (defendant), a former country-music singer, and Paul Sogg, a wealthy general contractor, began dating in 1987 when Paul was 87 years old. Before the marriage, Victoria had entered into an international currency-arbitrage scheme that resulted in her being swindled out of $265,000. In April 1987, Paul and Victoria were engaged to be married. At the time, Victoria knew Paul was wealthy, but she was unaware that he was worth $20 million. Victoria was practically destitute. The day before the wedding, Paul took Victoria to his lawyer’s office to sign a prenuptial agreement. Victoria had not been given a copy of the agreement beforehand. Paul arranged for Victoria to meet with another lawyer, Cox, to review the agreement, but Paul interrupted the meeting before Victoria and Cox finished their review. Victoria expressed concerns that the agreement did not provide her with any support in the event of divorce and that she would be required to return the jewelry and the car Paul had bought for her. Paul called off the wedding. Several weeks later, Paul and Victoria reconciled and set a new wedding date. On the morning of the wedding, Paul brought Victoria to his lawyer’s office to sign the prenuptial agreement. Victoria was not given the opportunity to read the agreement before signing, and the agreement did not contain a full disclosure of Paul’s assets. Paul promised Victoria that the agreement would be subsequently amended to ensure she received support in the event of divorce. Paul filed for divorce approximately eight months later without amending the prenuptial agreement. The trial court upheld the agreement, finding that it was not unconscionable and that it was entered into voluntarily and knowingly. Victoria appealed, arguing that the prenuptial agreement was the product of fraud. The Nevada State Bank (plaintiff), as Paul’s executor, defended the appeal after Paul’s death.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.