Prenuptial Agreements May Suffer Setback for Men

Mensactivism.org

"The Boston Herald ran an article titled "Judge to hubby: Forget prenup, pay up" in their December 30, 2004 edition. The first sentence of the article sums it all up nicely: "In a possibly precedent-setting case, the state Appeals Court has ruled that an ex-wife is entitled to alimony even though she signed a prenuptial agreement waiving it."

Pete's Points

In Australia the Family Law Act has always considered prenuptial agreements as something that it 'may' consider in the making a judgement about property settlement. The laws pertaining to de facto relationships has (at least in the past) been different in that it honours the contractual arrangement between the parties and enforces prenuptial agreements.

"What is the world coming to when contracts are no longer enforceable?" you may ask. The reality I suspect is a little more complex. If a contract is entered into under duress then you would not want to have it enforced. If a contract was entered into and one of the parties lacked the ability to understand what was being entered into, then you would not want to have it enforced. If one of the parties was deliberately setting out to defraud the other party by means of the contract, you would not want it enforced.

So while on the face of it this news story would suggest a logical conclusion - namely "Men - don't get married, live in a de facto relationship." I suspect that a more useful consideration would be to ensure that the prenuptial agreement is fair to both sides. Then I suspect the courts would honour it as a valid contract.