- Introduction
In July of 2026, an Ohio Court of Appeals decision, A.M. v. J.M., affirmed a trial court’s decision to remove language from a prenuptial agreement that one party’s attorney had inserted during drafting, entirely altering terms that had previously been negotiated. The altered language changed the provision to require a divorcing wife to wait until her husband’s death, rather than the previously agreed upon time of divorce, to collect her property settlement. The court reformed the agreement, deleting the insertion of “upon death” language that had been added, after finding clear and convincing evidence that the insertion was, at best, a drafting error, and at worst, an intentional insertion that opposing counsel exploited. For practitioners, this case illustrates Ohio’s reformation doctrine as applied to prenuptial agreements, and stands as a direct reminder that the negotiation process when drafting marital agreements is crucial to the validity of the agreement itself. Just because something is in writing in the agreement does not ensure that it will be taken at face value.
- Facts of the Case
A wife and husband were married on August 8, 2015. They negotiated a prenuptial agreement, both represented by counsel, and defined a “termination event” as well as a payment formula for what the wife would receive upon divorce. They specified that if the parties were married for at least five, but less than ten years, the wife was entitled to $3 million on top of an additional ten percent of the husband’s premarital net assets, plus twenty percent of any post-marital net assets, with a minimum floor of $5 million. In one of the sections, the phrase “at [Husband’s] death” appeared, once, before listing the payment amounts. On July 31, 2015, the husband’s counsel emailed the wife’s counsel and confirmed that the terms provided for payment upon, explicitly, termination of marriage. Later that day a revised draft was sent in which the added language referring to the husband’s death was inserted. The husband’s counsel said nothing about the change, and the wife’s counsel did not notice it. The husband filed for divorce in September of 2020. He argued, at trial, that the death language was intentional and agreed upon, and because of it, the wife was not entitled to his money until his death, which, as he is in his 30s, would likely be in the very far future. The trial court disagreed, altered the agreement and removed that language, and ordered a payment of $10,048,372 under the prenuptial formula. The husband appealed.
- Legal Issue
The central question in this case was whether the trial court was justified in reforming the prenuptial agreement to remove the language that specified “upon [Husband’s] death.” Reformation is ordinarily available only for a mutual mistake, in which both parties share the same mistaken understanding of the agreement’s terms. However, in this case, the circumstances were not mutual, and the legal issue was whether reformation, under Ohio law, could support a unilateral mistake where one party took advantage of an error they knew about.
- Court Analysis
The court began by applying Ohio’s standard framework for prenuptial agreements, which requires that they be entered without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching, with full disclosure and without terms that promote any kind of divorce (Gross v. Gross). In this case, the court looked at the breadth of “overreaching,” which includes one party using artifice or cunning to outwit the other. The court found that while reformation is generally only available for mutual mistake, it is also appropriate where a mistake resulted from a drafting error made by one party, and that the other party knew of the error and intentionally and knowingly took advantage of it (Wong v. CCH Dev. Corp.). The mistake, whether mutual or if one party knowingly exploited the other party’s drafting error, must be established using clear and convincing evidence (Cuthbert v. Trucklease Corp.). Ultimately, the court found that the mistake made was able to meet that standard in this case. The wife’s counsel testified that the death language was “absolutely a mistake” and noted that the agreement already contained a separate and thus redundant provision for what would happen if the husband were to die. Email exchanges confirmed the parties had negotiated payment at divorce, not upon death. The draft that the husband’s counsel sent on July 31 confirmed this, and the revised draft was sent the same day with the death language added, without notifying the wife’s counsel of the change. On cross-examination, the husband’s counsel admitted that he had not disclosed this change and had no explanation for why it would be necessary. Upon reviewing all of the evidence, the court agreed with the trial court’s judgment and affirmed that reformation was appropriate.
- Practical Implications
A.M. v. J.M. illustrates how a change in a marital agreement, introduced silently, without notifying the spouse’s counsel, can be exposed years later and require extensive litigation to reform. Ohio’s reformation doctrine for unilateral mistakes requires that the party who knew of the drafting error took advantage of it. Clear and convincing evidence was easily established for both of these points. For practitioners, this case is a reminder of how crucial detailed reading of agreements is, as a single altered phrase can lead to years of litigation. Additionally, practitioners should be aware that sending a revised draft to opposing counsel without flagging what has changed can, itself, become an issue brought up in trial. The negotiation history of prenuptial agreements can and will be examined if the agreement is challenged. Practitioners should treat their drafting correspondence as part of the evidentiary record.
- Conclusion
A.M. v. J.M. confirms that a prenuptial agreement may be reformed, even if the error is not mutually agreed upon. The death language in this case was ultimately removed, and the wife received her settlement at divorce. For practitioners, this case is a reminder of the ethical dilemma, and following legal consequences, that come with not flagging key drafting revisions, and that the email record of prenuptial negotiations can be examined and used as evidence if the agreement is contested.