Melba B. Homra, et al. v. Harold Elliott Nelson - Dissenting

I respectfully dissent from the decision reached by the majority. It is undisputed that Mrs. Nelson’s medical condition, Alzheimer’s Disease, required that she be placed in a skilled nursing facility. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson, having executed an “Antenuptial Agreement” prior to marriage, the question presented is who is responsible for the payment of the skilled nursing care. The majority concludes the responsibility lies with Mr. Nelson, looking to paragraph three of the “Antenuptial Agreement and interpreting the phrase “other daily necessities.” The majority opines it is unfortunate that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Nelson thought that either would need long-term care and such was not provided for in the Antenuptial Agreement. I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority. It is clear from reading the Antenuptial Agreement that Mr. and Mrs. Nelson were desirous of keeping their property separate as each had children of another marriage and, to the extent possible, neither wished to burden the other with debts. As I view the entire Antenuptial Agreement, the phrase used by the majority to impose responsibility upon Mr. Nelson I would read it to obligate Mr. Nelson to provide such items as toothpaste, deodorant, toiletries, and other such items, but not extraordinary medical expenses. I do not read the phrase to clearly state it is Mr. Nelson’s responsibility to provide, in essence, hospital care or nursing care for Mrs. Nelson.