Case Update (14 Oct 2024): In re Marriage Helena Koivu; Finnish Choice of Law Provision in antenuptial valid

The parties are spouses, married in Finland. The Husband was a citizen of Finland and the Wife was a citizen of Estonia living in Finland. The Husband was a professional hockey player based in Minnesota, and the Wife relocated to Minnesota to live with him in the latter part of 2012. They agreed in July 2013 to marry, and, in May 2014, traveled to Turku Finland for the wedding. The Husband retained a Finnish attorney to prepare an antenuptial agreement. Two to three days before the wedding in July 2014, the parties met with the attorney and discussed the draft agreement. They then returned to the attorney’s office a day or two later and signed it. They were married the following day. The agreement is actually comprised of two documents, a prenuptial agreement and a precontract for division of the property of the spouses. The two documents provided that, if the parties divorced, they would each keep their own property, whether acquired before or during the marriage, and then, if the marriage were to end, but for the Husband’s death, he would buy the Wife an apartment of a certain value, adjusted for inflation. Both documents stated, “[w]e agree that the Finnish law will be applicable to our matrimonial property rights, regardless of where our habitual residence or domicile at the time is.” The Husband’s Finnish lawyer later stated that he believed “in 2014 that a choice-of-law provision was appropriate because, given the nature of [Husband’s] employment, it was difficult to predict where he might live in the future.” The lawyer also stated that he was unfamiliar with U.S. law. The parties resided in Minnesota for the next five years, the parties had three children, and then they separated in late 2019, with the Wife petitioning for dissolution of marriage in February 2020. The Husband sought to enforce the agreement, including its choice-of-law provision. The Wife stated she signed the agreement under duress, and therefore it should be unenforceable under Minnesota law. In April 2022, the parties stipulated to appointment of a consensual special magistrate to issue a binding decision, subject only to the right of appeal. The magistrate considered the issues related to the antenuptial agreement in sequence. (1) The magistrate decided whether Finnish law or Minnesota law applies to the question of the validity of the agreement. He concluded Finnish law. (2) The magistrate then decided whether the agreement was valid under Finnish law. He concluded it was. Then, (3) the magistrate determined the amount that the Husband was required to pay to the Wife to fulfill the contractual obligations.

Both parties appealed. In regards to the Wife’s appeal as to the first issue resolved by the Magistrate - whether he erred by applying Finnish law - the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in a non-precedential opinion, stated that “parties to a contract generally may agree on the law that applies to the contract.” There was no evidence that “either party knew what law would otherwise apply, knew what Minnesota or any other state’s law was, or knew whether any other law would be significantly different from Finnish law.” There was no improper intent to specifically avoid Minnesota law. This was a marriage between a Finnish citizen and an Estonian citizen, drafted in the Finnish language, and signed in Finland. Further, the Wife’s argument that she signed under duress and coercion were “focused on the antenuptial agreement’s financial terms, not on its contractual choice-of-law provision.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that “the magistrate did not err by concluding that Finnish law applies to the question of whether the antenuptial agreement is enforceable.” The Wife did not challenge the second issue resolved by the Magistrate - whether the antenuptial was enforceable under Finnish law.

Separately, the Husband challenged, on appeal, the Magistrate’s award of attorney fees, arguing that Finnish law does not provide for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals stated that the magistrate “first determined that need-based attorney fees are outside the scope of the antenuptial agreement’s choice-of-law provision, which states that Finnish law would apply only to the parties’ ‘matrimonial property rights.’ The magistrate then applied Minnesota’s common-law multi-factor balancing test and concluded that Minnesota law applies.” Husband argued that Minnesota law requires the choice-of-law provision to also govern any claims that stem from or concern the parties’ contract and were “closely related to the interpretation of the contracts and fall within the ambit of the express agreement”. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded, indicating that a request for need-based fees is not closely related to a contractual right to spousal support.

The Court of Appeals affirmed on the calculation of fees and the financial rights under the terms of their antenuptial agreement.