An American woman who was given a $2.4 million payout after a five-year-long relationship with a multimillionaire Kelowna tech-entrepreneur has lost a legal challenge to get more money.

Alicia Ann Baker argued that a “cohabitation agreement” that she signed when she got together with Club Penguin founder Lancelot Darren Priebe wasn’t valid. She said she didn’t understand the terms of the contract and only signed it because of her immigration issues.

However, Supreme Court Justice Michael Klein dismissed Baker’s argument, saying she was educated and well-versed in contracts and knew exactly what she was signing.

The Justice pointed out that after they got together, lawyers spent 30 hours drafting various contracts outlining their legal relationship until the couple agreed. The contracts were then vetted by their lawyers.

In one version, Baker wanted a $5-million gift from Priebe, although he rejected it.

The details are laid out in an Aug. 13 BC Supreme Court decision, which says the tech-entrepreneur, who goes by the name Lance, met his former partner through a travelling companion website when Baker was living in Los Angeles in 2014.

The couple got together, and Baker moved to Kelowna with him.

At the time, Priebe was worth $50 million and Baker $62,000.

Each partner got their lawyer to vet the contracts, and when the agreement was finally agreed upon the couple sat down one morning and signed it. Priebe’s father was the witness.

“During the relationship, she enjoyed a lifestyle of relative affluence, all of which was supplied by (Priebe). (Baker) was given access to the claimant’s credit cards and received gifts… including a Tesla automobile. As per the agreement, all gifts given to her during the relationship were hers to keep,” the Justice said.

However, even with the paperwork in place, when the couple separated in 2020, it wasn’t amicable.

In 2022, Priebe went to court to have Baker removed from his home. She had been living in the basement of their 7,000 square foot home, and Priebe paid her $60,000 for her moving expenses.

Details from that court case show a far from harmonious split.

When the separation was finalized, Priebe paid Baker $2,401,383.

However, she argued under BC Family Law she should get more.

Baker advanced numerous legal arguments as to why the contract was invalid and the family law should be relied upon.

She argued Priebe took advantage of her vulnerability and ignorance, and that she signed the agreement under duress because of her immigration status.

She said she couldn’t remember signing the prenup but that it looked “familiar.”

However, the Justice wasn’t convinced.

“(Baker) is well-educated and has significant experience in business, contracts and accounting and some educational experience in law. Her education and work experience leads to the inescapable conclusion that (she) is sophisticated and well-versed in contracts and agreements,” the Justice said. “It therefore rings hollow that (she) would be nonchalant or indifferent to the execution of documents that were so important to her future.”

The justice said he had “grave concerns” about her credibility.

“In contrast, (Priebe) gave his evidence in a straightforward and forthright manner. He made concessions when it was appropriate to do so. He was careful in his evidence. He did not embellish his evidence. Moreover, much of what he had to say was corroborated by documentary evidence,” Justice Klein said.

While Baker argued Priebe exploited the “power imbalance,” the Justice said the evidence showed that Priebe had done everything he could to ensure she signed the contract with “open eyes.”

The decision says Baker managed to double her $2.4-million payout to $4.5-million within a couple of years of the separation without working.

However, she told the Justice she was “surviving.”

“It is more accurate to say that (she) is thriving,” the Justice said.

“What is an inescapable conclusion is that the capital sum provided to (Baker) pursuant to the agreement has worked just as the Family Law Act intended and has provided (her) with a significant increase in her net worth,” the Justice said. “In terms of her net worth, (she) is better off than she was prior to, and during the relationship and therefore the agreement has operated as intended allowing (her) to meet her financial need.”

Ultimately, the Justice dismissed her claim.