may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Re the Marriage of:
Evangeline Alice Edevold, petitioner,
Wallace Erman Edevold,
Filed June 10, 1997
Clearwater County District Court
File No. F894229
Timothy L. Tingelstad, Carpenter Law Office, P.A., 201 Seventh Street, P.O. Box 1220, Bemidji, MN 56619 (for respondent)
Thomas L. D'Albani, Cann, Haskell, D'Albani, Schueppert, Hazelton & Rodgers, P.A., 205 Seventh Street N.W., P.O. Box 978, Bemidji, MN 56619 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
In November of 1995, a trial court found the parties' 1993 antenuptial agreement invalid. On appeal from the October 1996 final judgment and decree of dissolution, Wallace Erman Edevold argues the trial court erred by dividing marital property without regard for the parties' antenuptial agreement. His former spouse argues the appeal is untimely. We affirm.
Edevold's former spouse argues that appeal should have been taken from the trial court's November 28, 1995 order invalidating the antenuptial agreement and, therefore, this appeal is untimely. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.04, subd. 1 (permitting appeal from order within 30 days after service of notice of filing). However, the November order was not immediately appealable. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03 (setting forth appealable judgments and orders). Therefore, we conclude Edevold properly filed this appeal from the October 23, 1996 judgment and decree of dissolution. Under these circumstances, the appeal is timely. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.04, subd. 1 (permitting appeal within 90 days of entry of judgment).
Edevold argues the trial court erroneously found that the parties entered into their antenuptial agreement without full financial disclosure. While antenuptial agreements have long been favored in the law, they are not valid and enforceable unless there is a full and fair disclosure of each party's earnings and property. See Hafner v. Hafner, 295 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Minn. 1980) (discussing public policy favoring enforcement of antenuptial agreements); see also Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1 (1996) (setting forth statutory requirements for valid and enforceable antenuptial agreements); McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 265 (Minn. 1989) (requiring proponent, pursuant to procedural fairness standards, to establish that parties contracted voluntarily after full financial disclosure). The record demonstrates Edevold: (1) knew the terms of his workers' compensation claim settlement prior to execution of the antenuptial agreement, but failed to disclose that information to his former spouse; (2) believed his former spouse agreed to remarry him because she expected him to receive a large settlement from his workers' compensation claim; and (3) failed to attach financial statements disclosing assets, liabilities, net worth, and earnings to the antenuptial agreement. Given these facts, the trial court did not err in finding the parties' antenuptial agreement invalid and dividing the property accordingly.