Dillard, Chief Judge.James Robert Brantley, Sr. filed a complaint for divorce from Cyd Oglesby Brantley, and shortly thereafter also filed a motion to enforce an antenuptial agreement, under which the parties waived any right to alimony. Cyd filed responsive pleadings, and, subsequently, the trial court denied Robert’s motion. On appeal, Robert contends that the trial court erred in applying an incorrect legal theory that resulted in it ruling that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable. For the reasons set forth infra, we agree. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s ruling and remand the case for reconsideration consistent with this opinion. Enforcement of an antenuptial agreement is “a matter of public policy.”[1] In determining whether to enforce an antenuptial agreement, the trial court has discretion to “approve the agreement in whole or in part, or refuse to approve it as a whole.”[2] Consequently, we evaluate a trial court’s ruling regarding the enforceability of an antenuptial agreement under “the familiar abuse of discretion standard of review.”[3] And under this standard, we review “the trial court’s legal holdings de novo, and we uphold the trial court’s factual findings as long as they are not clearly erroneous, which means there is some evidence in the record to support them.”[4] So viewed, the record shows that Robert and Cyd began dating in 1999. They were engaged to be married in 2002, and on December 14, 2002, they jointly purchased a home, which required them to provide their respective financial information for the mortgage loan application. On December 27, 2002, three days before their wedding date, Robert and Cyd executed an antenuptial agreement, which, inter alia, provided that, in the event of divorce, both parties waived any claims for alimony. In addition, the agreement referenced attached financial disclosures from both Robert and Cyd and further provided:The parties agree and stipulate that each of them has made a full and fair disclosure to the other of his or her current financial worth and income. Further, both parties agree and stipulate that they have reviewed Exhibits “A” and “B” hereto, and, therefore, both parties are fully acquainted with and are aware of the financial circumstances of the other party.
