The Vermont Supreme Court reversed a family court decision in *Christopher Gade v. Erin Gade*, ruling that divorce courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate breach of contract claims related to premarital agreements. The decision, issued in case No. 25-AP-042, clarifies the scope of family court authority in enforcing prenuptial agreements during divorce proceedings.
The case arose from a divorce between Christopher and Erin Gade, who had entered into a premarital agreement before their marriage. The prenuptial agreement designated the couple's assets as separate property and included a provision requiring the husband to pay the wife for any increased value of the marital home upon divorce.
When the couple divorced, both parties sought enforcement of their premarital agreement. However, Christopher Gade requested that the family court offset his wife's share of the marital home's appreciation by damages he claimed she inflicted on the property. He also sought consideration of alleged breaches of the premarital contract.
The Chittenden County Family Division granted Erin Gade's motion to enforce the agreement but declined to consider the merits of Christopher Gade's arguments. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over any assets it could potentially award to the husband if it found a breach of the premarital agreement.
Justice Harold Eaton wrote the opinion for the Vermont Supreme Court, which included Chief Justice Paul Reiber and Justices William Cohen and Nancy Waples, along with specially assigned Superior Judge Thomas Corbett. The court found the family division's jurisdictional analysis was incorrect.
"We conclude that in the context of the divorce proceeding, the family division had jurisdiction over the parties' property and the premarital agreement and thus authority to adjudicate husband's claims regarding breach of that agreement," Justice Eaton wrote in the opinion.
The ruling addresses an important question about the extent of family courts' authority during divorce proceedings when premarital agreements are involved. The decision establishes that family courts cannot simply enforce favorable provisions of prenuptial agreements while declining to consider breach claims that might affect the overall property distribution.
The case highlights the complexity that can arise when couples with prenuptial agreements divorce. While premarital agreements are generally designed to streamline property division by establishing separate ownership of assets, disputes can still emerge over the interpretation and enforcement of specific provisions.
In this case, the premarital agreement appeared straightforward in designating assets as separate property and requiring compensation for home appreciation. However, the husband's claims about property damage and contract breaches complicated the enforcement process.
The Vermont Supreme Court's decision means that family courts must consider all aspects of premarital agreements during divorce proceedings, including potential breaches and offsets, rather than selectively enforcing only certain provisions.
The attorneys representing the parties were Jacob Oblak of Henchen & Oblak, LLP in Waterbury for Christopher Gade, and Rory N. Butler of Lynn, Lynn, Blackman & Toohey, P.C. in Burlington for Erin Gade.
The case was decided during the October 2025 term of the Vermont Supreme Court. As noted in the court's opinion, the decision is subject to motions for reargument under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 and formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
The Vermont Supreme Court's reversal and remand means the case will return to the family division for further proceedings. The trial court will now need to consider Christopher Gade's claims about property damage and alleged breaches of the premarital agreement, rather than limiting its analysis to the straightforward enforcement sought by Erin Gade.
This decision could have broader implications for how Vermont family courts handle complex premarital agreement disputes. The ruling suggests that courts cannot compartmentalize their review of prenuptial agreements but must consider all claims and counterclaims related to the contract's enforcement.
The case also demonstrates the importance of careful drafting in premarital agreements. While the Gades' prenup addressed basic asset separation and home value compensation, it apparently did not anticipate or clearly resolve disputes about property damage or other potential breaches that might arise during the marriage.
For family law practitioners in Vermont, the decision provides important guidance on jurisdictional questions related to premarital agreements. The ruling confirms that family courts have comprehensive authority over property matters and contract disputes arising from prenuptial agreements in the context of divorce proceedings.
The case will now proceed in the family division, where the court will need to evaluate the husband's claims about property damage and alleged breaches while also addressing the wife's request for enforcement of the home appreciation provision.