Find Legal Information

Petitioner Elizabeth Puterbaugh filed this action againstrespondent David Puterbaugh requesting an increase in the amount ofchild support for their children. During discovery, Elizabethrequested a copy of David's antenuptial agreement that he hadexecuted with his current wife, Katherine. David and Katherinerefused to comply with the court's discovery order, claiming thattheir antenuptial agreement was protected by marital privilege andby a constitutional right to privacy, and that the requestedinformation was duplicative of information they had alreadyprovided. The trial court rejected their arguments and found Davidand Katherine in indirect civil contempt, sanctioning them $500 and$50 per day, respectively, until they complied with the order. David and Katherine appealed. We affirm and hold that antenuptialagreements are not protected by the marital privilege or by a rightto privacy. Because an issue remains as to the relevance of therequested document, we remand for an in camera inspection by thetrial court as to the document's relevance. Finally, we vacate thecontempt order and sanctions as David and Katherine's refusal tocomply was a good faith test of the court's discovery order.

FACTS

Elizabeth and David Puterbaugh were married in 1988. Theyhave two children, Walter, age 12, and George, age 11. Elizabethand David divorced in 1996; Elizabeth was granted physical custodyof the children. David was ordered to pay $3,000 per month inpermanent child support and pay other expenses, such as privateschool tuition and medical costs. Thereafter, David and Katherinedecided to marry. They signed an antenuptial agreement incontemplation of that marriage.

Several years later, Elizabeth filed a motion requesting thatthe court increase the amount of David's child support payments. Accordingly, Elizabeth served David with several requests forproduction of documents, seeking David's financial information from1996 to the present. One of Elizabeth's requests for productionsought a copy of David and Katherine's antenuptial agreement. David objected, and shortly thereafter, Katherine intervened. After a hearing on Elizabeth's motion, the court ordered that onepage of the antenuptial agreement that contained a financialexhibit be produced. When David and Katherine failed to producethe exhibit, they were held in contempt of court and sanctioned$500 and $50 per day, respectively, until they complied with thecourt's order. Their motion to stay enforcement of the contemptorder was granted by the trial court, and they appealed.

ANALYSIS On appeal, David and Katherine argue that their antenuptialagreement was protected by marital privilege, that production ofthe requested exhibit would violate their right to privacy, andthat the contempt order and sanctions should be vacated.

We review questions of law de novo. See In re Marriage ofBonneau, 294 Ill. App. 3d 720, 691 N.E.2d 123 (1998).

With regard to David and Katherine's first argument, theyclaim that their antenuptial agreement is privileged and thatdisclosure of the exhibit would violate their right to privacy intheir marriage. In support of their argument, they assert that theagreement was prepared and executed "in contemplation of marriage"and that they were "effectively spouses" at the time of itsexecution. See 750 ILCS 10/2 (West 2000). David and Katherinecontend that because marriage has been given broad constitutionalprotections as a fundamental right and because the antenuptialagreement concerns matters related to their marriage, the requireddisclosure of the antenuptial agreement would violate their privacyrights.

Section 8-801 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS5/8-801 (West 2000)) sets forth the marital privilege. It statesin part that "in all actions, husband and wife may testify for oragainst each other, provided that neither may testify as to anycommunication or admission made by either of them to the other oras to any conversation between them during marriage***." Themarital privilege is intended to preserve the privacy ofcommunications between spouses. In re Baby Boy Butt, 76 Ill. App.3d 587, 395 N.E.2d 1 (1979). The privilege has not been extendedto testimony regarding conversations and transactions occurringprior to marriage. Otis v. Spencer, 102 Ill. 622 (1882).

Although David and Katherine argue that the antenuptialagreement is privileged, their agreement does not fall under theplain meaning of the marital privilege statute. Because thelanguage of section 8-801 (735 ILCS 5/8-801 (West 2000)) providesthat the marital privilege applies to communications "during marriage," the privilege is inapplicable in this case because Davidand Katherine were not married when the agreement was executed. Asa result, David and Katherine's argument must fail. See In reMarriage of Beyer & Parkis, 324 Ill. App. 3d 305, 753 N.E.2d 1032(2001) (noting that words are to be given their ordinary meaningwhen a court interprets a statute). We hold that David andKatherine's antenuptial agreement was not protected under themarital privilege and the financial exhibit was not excluded fromdiscovery on that ground.

David and Katherine argue that their right to privacy in theirmarriage under the constitutions of the United States and Illinois(Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,