Domestic relations – Limitations – Prenuptial agreement

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the defendant, his father-in-law, improperly advised him not to obtain a prenuptial agreement before marrying the defendant’s daughter, a judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds must be vacated because the plaintiff’s claims did not accrue at the time of his marriage in 2006.

“The plaintiff, William C. Connell, filed a complaint against his father-in-law, Robert J. Morrissey, claiming Morrissey improperly advised him not to obtain a prenuptial agreement before marrying Morrissey’s daughter. Connell appeals from a judgment dismissing his artfully drafted complaint on statute of limitations grounds. We reverse the order allowing the motion to dismiss and vacate the judgment. …

“The issue presented is whether Connell’s breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and gross negligence claims, and his request for declaratory relief, accrued at the time of his marriage in 2006, as Morrissey contends, or, as Connell argues, when Pamela sought to access information about his trusts in 2020. At this procedural stage, where we are constrained to accept the truth of the facts as alleged in the complaint, … Connell has the better argument. …

“Here, Morrissey’s alleged repudiation of trust, fraudulent misrepresentations, and breach of duty occurred in 2006. … Connell, however, did not learn of the harm flowing from Morrissey’s wrongdoing until his divorce proceedings began. On March 16, 2020, Pamela’s attorney filed the first of several motions seeking discovery about the Connell family trusts and other premarital assets, and in August 2020, the attorney sought distributions from the trusts to Pamela. At some point between March 16, 2020, and August 2020, when Pamela sought to add the trustees of the Connell family trusts as parties to the divorce action and Morrissey resigned as a trustee, Connell (1) knew unequivocally that his trust assets were being targeted ‘aggressively’ in the divorce proceedings and that, absent a prenuptial agreement, the Connell family trusts and his premarital assets could be at risk; and (2) began incurring significant attorney’s fees to defend his trust and premarital assets that, until that time, he had thought were safe. Connell’s actual knowledge of the harm forming the basis of his claims then triggered the running of the limitations period. … This action, filed on March 7, 2023, was therefore timely.

“Accordingly, we disagree with the ruling that Connell’s claims accrued on the day he married Pamela in 2006 without a prenuptial agreement. Connell certainly knew about the importance and benefits of a prenuptial agreement and some of Morrissey’s wrongdoing at that point, such as Morrissey’s obvious conflict of interest. As he alleges the facts, however, he was then unaware that he had been harmed by Morrissey’s advice to forgo that protection.

“For two reasons, at the time of his marriage, Connell was operating under the belief that the Connell family assets would never be at risk in the event of divorce. First, Morrissey, a prominent trusts and estates attorney, had been selected by Connell’s father to protect the family assets, and Connell understood that ‘as a trustee from the outset,’ Morrissey knew the terms of the trusts established to fulfill that goal. Morrissey specifically assured Connell that, in his expert opinion, a prenuptial agreement was unnecessary in the event of divorce, causing Connell to reasonably believe that the attorneys who drafted the trusts had made sure the assets were unreachable by a spouse. Second, Connell believed that, in marrying Pamela, he was joining another very wealthy family and that, given Morrissey’s own financial success, ‘Pamela would have no reason to ever seek Connell family assets and would never do so.’ As Connell alleges the facts, therefore, he was not yet aware of the harm that he had suffered in 2006, … and the complaint in this case was thus not time-barred.

“The order allowing the motion to dismiss is reversed, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.”

Connell v. Morrissey (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-089-25) (10 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-759) (June 11, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.