What Kaley Cuoco’s divorce proceedings can teach you about prenups

The news broke earlier this month that the divorce proceeding between “Big Bang Theory” actress Kaley Cuoco and professional tennis player Ryan Sweeting just became a whole lot more complicated than originally reported.
Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, considering that Ms. Cuoco recently was named (in a tie with Sofia Vergara) as Forbes’ highest paid TV actress for 2015, with $28.5 million in earnings, including an impressive payday of one million dollars per episode. Comparatively, Mr. Sweeting — who boasts only one career tournament win and has been battling injuries — has an estimated net worth of only $2 million, more than $40 million less than Ms. Cuoco’s reported net worth.
So why should anyone be surprised that the spouse worth less is asking for financial support from the big bread winner?
Ms. Cuoco played a smart game from the start. Even though she and Mr. Sweeting were married after only six months of dating, Ms. Cuoco and Mr. Sweeting had a prenuptial agreement, signed on November 20, 2013 — more than a month before their wedding on December 31, 2013. With a good prenuptial agreement in place, a drawn-out match over financial issues like spousal support can be largely avoided.
Note the important qualifier here — “largely” avoided is not “completely” avoided. The existence of a prenuptial agreement does not end the match. It certainly gives Ms. Cuoco a huge lead in the battle over spousal support, though.
California, where Ms. Cuoco and Mr. Sweeting lived, has a very detailed and specific law about the validity of prenuptial agreements. In short, if the prenup is found to be valid, then it controls and whatever the document says, Mr. Sweeting must live with. So far, the details of who-gets-what in the prenup haven’t been made public, but whatever it says, it clearly favors Ms. Cuoco.
Ms. Cuoco filed for divorce on Sept. 25, stating in her divorce petition that the prenuptial agreement controlled spousal support and how their assets would be divided. Mr. Sweeting argues for a different approach, asking for Ms. Cuoco to pay him spousal support, terminating any rights of Ms. Cuoco to seek support from him, as well as asking Ms. Cuoco to cover his legal fees for the divorce. The legal fee request particularly raises a red flag, since Ms. Cuoco’s divorce filing states that the prenuptial agreement calls for each side to pay their own legal fees.
How will this all shake out? It could get complicated. First, it’s up to Ms. Cuoco and her lawyers to prove that Mr. Sweeting had an independent attorney represent him when the prenuptial agreement was signed and that it would not be “unconscionable” to enforce the agreement based on the current circumstances. Mr. Sweeting could also try to avoid the prenup if he can prove that he did not voluntarily sign it (meaning he was coerced into it, which would be hard for him to prove), that he wasn’t provided with a seven-day “waiting period” before singing it, or that he was not given full disclosure of Ms. Cuoco’s assets when he signed it.
Chances are high, given the amount of money at stake, that the “i’s” were dotted and the “t’s” crossed, meaning that full disclosures were made and Mr. Sweeting had his own attorney at the time, as well as sufficient time to sign it. It would be very likely that Ms. Cuoco can win those volleys, with ease.
The harder question, however, is whether Mr. Sweeting can win enough points with the argument that it would be “unconscionable” to enforce the prenup against him based on his present circumstances. What does the word “unconscionable” mean exactly? California courts haven’t definitively answered that question in battles over prenups, but essentially, it is a question of whether it would be very unfair to enforce the prenuptial agreement. Using courts from other states for guidance, it is likely that this will come down to whether the spouse trying to escape the prenuptial agreement would be without a reasonable source of adequate support if denied spousal support.
In other words, Mr. Sweeting could argue that his various injuries have prevented him from earning a living as a tennis player. He could toss in the point that his injuries arose during the marriage, meaning he cannot reasonably support himself now, and he needs help. Mr. Sweeting’s legal team could contend that this is a different set of circumstances than when the prenuptial agreement was signed, so it would be very unfair to enforce it against him now.
If the judge assigned to the case accepts these arguments, then Mr. Sweeting would likely receive spousal support from Ms. Cuoco, depending on how much he needs to support himself. But, even in that case, the support would likely be short-lived, since the couple was only married for about 21 months. Courts often follow a general guideline of one-half the duration of the marriage (for shorter marriages at least) for spousal support, when there is no enforceable prenup. So, realistically, Ms. Cuoco would only have to support Mr. Sweeting for a year or so, even if he prevails in convincing the court to tear-up the prenup.
Will the famous ex-couple engage in a lengthy match over the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement? Or will they settle out of court to avoid the expensive legal fees — and negative publicity — that such a fight can entail? Only time will tell, but the odds certainly favor a quiet settlement.
Ms. Cuoco and Mr. Sweeting provide a valuable lesson for anyone entering into a marriage with assets. Prenuptial agreements are very important, but they must be prepared the correct way, by experienced attorneys who know how to comply with the laws of that particular state. But couples going down that road should be aware that, at least in some states, prenuptial agreements are not always iron-clad. When financial circumstances change dramatically after the prenuptial agreement is signed, there is at least the possibility of spousal support — and even division of assets — being awarded in a different fashion than what the agreement states.
And most importantly for couples seeking legal help with prenuptial agreements, if the lawyer doesn’t do his or her job correctly, the prenup may not help at all. Hiring the right lawyers — one for each spouse — is critically important when it’s time for the prenup.
And don’t forget to return to see your estate planning lawyer once a divorce starts, so that all of your planning documents can be updated.
Danielle and Andy Mayoras are co-authors of “Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and attorneys with Barron Rosenberg Mayoras & Mayoras, PC. You can reach them at [email protected].