In short, a husband and wife (in a second marriage for both of them) got married in 1989. At the time, she signed a prenuptual agreement waiving alimony.
Fast forward to now when the couple are getting divorced. The divorce judge upheld the portion of the prenup whereby the husband gets to keep the assets he had before the marriage, but threw out the alimony waiver stating that it was not reasonable. The courts ruling stated:
That may be so. But I would assume that she is a consenting adult who knew what she was signing in 1989. If I sign a contract that states that I will give my sister $200,000 a year, then I’m obligated to do so – I can’t then turn around and say “well, it was unreasonable.” I’m assumed to be (absent evidence to the contrary) capable of understanding contract, aren’t I?
The way I’ve always heard, the only thing a pre-nuptial really protects is ASSETS YOU HAVE AS OF THE DAY BEFORE THE WEDDING. You can’t alter ANYTHING ELSE the law may or may not consider your partner entitled to in the divorce, except for those pre-existing assets.
Apparently anything else is likely to get thrown out. Couldn’t tell you why, though.
In Australia it works the same way. The Family Court routinely rules in favour of a “fair” resolution without any regard to documents signed by the married partners. For this reason pre-nups are less common here.
It sounds to me like the wife was going to be left with no assets and no immediate income. In many states, judges may order alimony despite an alimony waiver in a pre-nup in order to keep the wife (or husband, as case may be) off of welfare (or out of total poverty).
I suspect that when she gets a job and can support herself, alimony will probably cease.
In many states, it is now possible for a prenuptial agreement to divide the marital assets as well, with some basic limitations. The rules vary significantly from state to state.
It seemed to me (based on the husband’s attorney’s statement) that she did receive assests from joint property of the marriage. What she did not receive was anything that he had before the marriage began.
While the law I stated is correct, it seems I’m wrong about the particulars of this case.
I don’t know enough about Mass. prenup law to discuss it, but some states do allow for a basic “fairness test” in evaluating whether or not to enforce a prenup. It would not surprise me to learn that Mass. has that kind of a law.
Actually, under the facts you’ve set forth, you aren’t obligated to do much of anything. You don’t even have to say its unreasonable. What you are talking about is a gift and no court is going to enforce that unless your sister does something silly like run out and rack up some serious debt based on your promise.
In any case, contracts like this are struck down or modified all the time in all types of settings. If the guy wanted his wife to stay home, then it is kind of unreasonable for him to get her to sign a prenup waiving alimony. She should not have signed it, but then, there was probably no small amount of coercion involved. “C’mon honey. If you loved me you’d sign this. Its just a simple prenup. It’s not like we’re ever going to get divorced.”
Why exactly is that unreasonable? She agreed to it. She was raising her children too. Is it his fault she had no assets and a negligible earning capacity?
Because it’s not fair, and some states out there won’t enforce a pre-nup that isn’t fair.
What the husband asked the wife to do was to stay home and raise their children, thereby forfeiting any opportunity she had to:
get a job and get experience to increase her earning capacity;
get an education that would increase her earning capacity; and
go out and earn some money of her own and build up her own assets.
The husband benefitted greatly from this arrangement. He got the services of a full-time housekeeper and full-time nanny for free, thus freeing him up to go to work and earn money. And freeing him from the burden of paying for certain services, thus allowing him to build up assets.
What the court is asking him to do is to pay her an allowance so she can go out and get herself some education or go through a job search. Almost all alimony today is rehabilitative, meaning it only goes on for a certain short period of time (rarely more than a few years) until the wife has a way of supporting herself.
The court believes it is unfair for her to have to burn through her share of the assets to do this. While this point is debatable, it is a reasonable way of looking at the situation, and it is a point of view that a lot of people (and a lot of state laws) take.
Alimony waivers are, however, upheld in a lot of circumstances.
In states that allow prenup waivers, and care about fairness, they’re upheld when the prenup seems fair. E.g., when the wife has earning capacity of her own; when the wife gets an “alimony buyout” (extra cash in exchange for the waiver); when wife has assets of her own entering the marriage.
In states where waivers are allowed, and they don’t care about fairness, they’re usually only overturned when the prenup will result in the wife becoming destitute. (And, in some of these states, even that isn’t enough.)
In your state, it doesn’t matter if it’s substantively fair.
In some states, it does.
I am a lawyer who spent a month doing a 50 state survey of the laws concerning antenuptial agreements just a couple of years ago. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about.
In your state, it doesn’t matter if it’s substantively fair.
In some states, the laws require that the antenuptial agreement be substantively fair. Often there are guidelines, but fairness is decided on a case-by-case basis.
There are special rules for antenuptial agreements. They are not treated like “just another contract.”
I am a lawyer who spent a month doing a 50 state survey of the laws concerning antenuptial agreements just a couple of years ago. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about.
From my cursory legal experience pre-nuptials aren’t worth the paper they are written on if they violate any laws the State has in regards to divorce and appropriation of assets/custody et cetera.
Now, from a non-legal standpoint I think people should have the freedom to enter into a marriage contract with whatever arrangements they see fit in relation to the financial aspects of the union. But that’s just my opinion.
Okay–if the laws in the state require that the antenuuptial agreement be substantively fair, then it would conflict with the laws of the state–right? And if it’s not treated as “just another contract” would that mean it could be successfully disputed even though it conflicted with state law?
Oh, they can. As long as they stay married. Once they’re divorced the state has the interest that, for instance, one isn’t left destitute and relying on welfare or other resources of the state while the other lives in luxury.
I don’t. I’m just assuming you know what you’re talking about.
Yes.
Huh? Don’t get what you’re trying to say here.
What I meant was, there are special rules for antenuptial agreements, above and beyond the rules for regular contracts. In some states, those rules require procedural fairness, substantive fairness, and/or that the enforcement of the agreement not leave one spouse destitute.
Martin, it really varies from state-to-state. Some states enforce antenuptial agreements no matter what. Others treat them as a mere suggestion. Many states are somewhere in between.