A woman who came to Kentucky on a fiance visa signed a prenup 11 days after arriving; her husband disclosed assets above $1 million versus her $39,000, and an appeals court upheld the agreement after their divorce

Woman claimed pressure and limited English affected her understanding of the agreement (Representational photo)

A woman who moved from China to Kentucky on a fiance visa and signed a prenuptial agreement just 11 days after arriving in the United States has lost her attempt to overturn the agreement following her divorce.Yuancong Zhang challenged the agreement with her former husband, Stuart M Chen, whose disclosed assets exceeded $1 million, compared with her approximately $39,000. Zhang argued that she had signed the document under pressure and did not fully understand its terms because of her limited English.However, the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the agreement on Friday, finding no reason to overturn the family court’s earlier decision.According to the judgment, the couple met in 2008, when Zhang lived in China. After several years together, they decided to marry. Before the wedding, Chen hired a lawyer in Kentucky to prepare an agreement that would protect his property for his two children. One of his children was permanently disabled and required lifelong care.The agreement stated that both Zhang and Chen would keep the property they owned before marriage, along with any property later acquired in their individual names. It also prevented either spouse from claiming a share in the increase in value of the other’s property, financial support after divorce or certain benefits following the other’s death.Chen gave Zhang the document in January 2015, months before she travelled to the United States. According to court records, he advised her on at least three occasions to have it translated into Chinese and explained it to her. Zhang arrived in Kentucky in July 2015, signed the agreement 11 days later and married Chen that September.

Why Zhang challenged the agreement

The marriage continued until 2023, when Chen filed for divorce and asked the court to enforce the prenuptial agreement. Zhang opposed it, arguing that the circumstances in which she signed the document were unfair and that enforcing it would leave her struggling financially.At a hearing in April 2024, Zhang said the agreement had been presented to her in English, a language in which she was not proficient. She argued that Chen had failed to provide a Chinese translation or arrange legal representation for her.She also pointed to her immigration situation. Zhang had entered the country on a K-1 fiance visa, which required her to marry Chen within 90 days or return to China. She claimed that because the marriage depended on signing the agreement, she had little meaningful choice.Her financial position had also changed after moving to the United States. Before marriage, Zhang had worked as a journalist in China for 16 years. She was 46 at the time and, according to her testimony, had been four years away from qualifying for retirement there.Zhang did not work during the marriage until Chen filed for divorce. She told the court that her long absence from employment and limited English made finding work difficult. She eventually secured a part-time supermarket job paying approximately $100 a week and said she was applying for public assistance.

Why court rejected her arguments

The Madison Family Court ruled in October 2024 that the agreement was valid and enforceable. It subsequently applied the agreement when granting the divorce in December that year.Zhang appealed, but the appeals court agreed with the earlier decision. It noted that she had received the document approximately six months before signing it and had been repeatedly advised to seek a translation or explanation.The judges said the family court had found that Zhang had sufficient time, resources and ability to obtain help understanding the agreement but had chosen not to do so.The court also rejected her argument that making the marriage conditional on signing the agreement amounted to unlawful pressure. It explained that prenuptial agreements are permitted under Kentucky law and that insisting on such an agreement before marriage did not, by itself, establish duress.Another issue was whether Zhang should receive financial support after divorce. She argued that her age, limited English and employment difficulties meant she could not adequately support herself.However, the court found that the financial difference between the couple had existed when they married and had not materially changed during their relationship.

What judges said about her financial situation

The family court had found that Chen was retired, supported his disabled adult son and lived on his retirement assets. Zhang had a journalism degree, had recently begun working and still appeared to have some savings in China.Although Zhang claimed she had been homeless for a period after separation, the court noted that Chen had allowed her to return to his home and supported her until she found employment and an apartment.The appeals court also pointed out that Chen had signed a financial sponsorship declaration during Zhang’s visa process. That obligation was separate from the prenuptial agreement, and Zhang appeared to retain the option of pursuing it through another legal action.The judges acknowledged that they might have reached a different conclusion themselves, but said the family court’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence. The October 30 ruling therefore left both the prenuptial agreement and the divorce decree in place.