This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C6-97-92

In Re the Marriage of:

Evangeline Alice Edevold, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

Wallace Erman Edevold,

Appellant.

Filed June 10, 1997

Affirmed

Short, Judge

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.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

SHORT, 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.

D E C I S I O N

Absent a motion for a new trial, the scope of review on appeal is limited to determining whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether those findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment. Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 458, 246 N.W.2d 565, 569 (1976). A trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.

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.

Affirmed.