In Matter of Estate of Lutz (N. Dakota Sup. Ct. 1997) 563 N.W.2d 90, the parties disputed whether the resisting party was ever advised of the right to have independent counsel, or understood that her fiance's attorney was not representing her. ( Id. at pp. 98-99).
It was in this context that the court concluded summary judgment should not have been awarded to the party desiring to enforce the premarital agreement because conflicting evidence was presented regarding whether the resisting party was actually advised of her right to obtain independent legal counsel. (Ibid.)
Thus, the Lutz opinion is factually and legally inapposite, and provides no support for the majority's adoption of the strict scrutiny rule or its refusal to defer to the trial court's posttrial factual findings.