While Massachusetts does not require parties to be represented by their own lawyers for the agreement to be legally binding, it is highly recommended. Legal representation not only allows each party to understand how the marriage contract affects them in the event of divorce, but a lawyer must also inform the part of the divorce law that they are waiving. Prenuptial agreements are intended to represent the distinct interests of both parties, and if the judge suspects that a party has been unfairly pressured without the benefit of independent counsel, the judge may conclude that part or all of the marriage contract is unenforceable. But just like other agreements, an ordinary marriage contract does not cover or address many issues and is subject to local law. For example, child support provisions are generally unenforceable because Massachusetts law requires a separate procedure to determine child support payments. In addition, provisions contrary to public policy, such as financial incentives for annulment, are also inapplicable. How do you determine if the agreement is valid? To be enforceable, the agreement must be valid at the time of enforcement and must also be fair and reasonable at the time of divorce. DeMatteo vs DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 , 26 (2002). Austin vs Austin, 445 Mass. Article 601 (2005) established guidelines for judges to determine whether an agreement is valid. The judge must declare: “(1) [the agreement] contains a fair and reasonable provision, measured at the time of its execution for the party challenging the agreement; (2) the contested party was fully informed of the value of the other party before the agreement was entered into or had or should have been known regardless of the value of the other party; and (3) a waiver by the disputing party is established.
Rosenberg vs. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666, 672 (1979). Premarital divorce agreements generally offer a more cost-effective way to manage the costs and conflicts associated with the dissolution of a marriage by establishing each party`s property rights, limiting the parties` claims against the other party`s estates, and providing details of ongoing maintenance obligations – albeit with some limitations. In addition to a divorce scenario, prenuptial arrangements may also apply to the parties in the event of the death of one of the spouses. One of the issues in the present case was whether the maintenance was actually annulled by the language of the marriage contract and, if the maintenance was not annulled, what sources of income would the court take into account in determining the amount of maintenance paid to the husband? Here are some reasons why an agreement may be invalid in Massachusetts: Although section 25 of the act provides for the approval of matrimonial agreements, the Supreme Court has imposed a requirement of reasonableness because the contract must be fair and reasonable at the time of performance and must not be unscrupulous later when a party attempts to perform the contract. The trial court found that Dematteo`s marriage contract was not fair and reasonable because of the financial settlement, the sophistication of the financial problems and marital lifestyle, and the large gap between Susan and Joseph`s ability to acquire future income and wealth. However, this judgment was overturned by the Supreme Court (see below). One of the main requirements for the validity of a marriage contract in Massachusetts is that it must be written and certified. Verbal agreements of any kind are unenforceable because there are no documents to replace the conditions proposed by each party. In summary, a marriage contract in Massachusetts can be a useful tool for engaged couples who want to create a clear understanding of their finances and wealth. If you are considering a marriage contract in Massachusetts, call Mavrides Law at 617.723.9900 or email us at info@mavrideslaw.com.
The court noted that the parties intended to disregard certain assets when determining support payments as well as income from those assets, since the parties, when entering into the agreement, wanted to protect certain assets. This limited the sources of income that the Court could take into account when determining the sources of income for support. The husband received alimony while the case was pending, and the court agreed with the husband that he was not required to reimburse the support received. Marriage contracts are intended to represent the interests of both parties. Suppose the judge suspects that one of the parties has been unlawfully pressured. In this case, the judiciary may render part or all of the marriage contract unenforceable. Before their wedding, Joseph discussed the need for a marriage contract with Susan, and Joseph and Susan each enlisted their own lawyers to begin negotiations on the deal. 8 years later, Joseph filed for divorce in Massachusetts, declaring that the marriage had broken down irretrievably (a term for a divorce in MA through no fault of his own). Joseph tried to enforce the prenup agreement, and after the divorce process, the trial court ruled that the agreement was unenforceable.
The court concluded that the agreement was not “fair and reasonable” at the time of its execution and “is not fair and reasonable at this time and therefore cannot be enforced.” (see above for more details on the “fair and reasonable” standard). .