A prenuptial agreement must pass a "second look" before enforcement

Ultimately, Massachusetts Courts will look to the current financial state of the divorcing parties before enforcing prenuptial agreements regardless of the situation at the time of execution of the agreements.

A prenuptial agreement must adhere to a variety of legal requirements before a court will enforce it. For example, each party to the agreement must obtain representation and enter the agreement of his or her own free will. Further, each side must fully and accurately disclose all financial assets and debts. And the agreement cannot be unconscionable, meaning that it must not be so unfair as to shock the conscience of the court.

If all of those threshold requirements are met, a court may uphold the terms of the agreement. Keep in mind that even an otherwise valid prenuptial agreement cannot do certain things. A prenuptial agreement is a financial tool that in the event of a split provides a way to more amicably divide property while limiting the time and expense of divorce. It cannot, however, predetermine who will receive custody of children, decide child support, or make rules about personal matters during the marriage.

Second look doctrine

In addition to all of the requirements present at the time in which the agreement is entered into, the prenuptial agreement must also not be unconscionable at the time of divorce in order for it to be valid. Under Massachusetts law, this is known as the "second look" doctrine.

The second look doctrine holds that if circumstances have changed beyond what each party to the agreement could have reasonably foreseen when it was created, or if one party would receive a highly inequitable division of assets, then the agreement may not be enforceable.

A recent ruling may help illustrate this analysis. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals upheld a Probate and Family Court judge's decision that a prenuptial agreement was invalid under the state's second look doctrine. The parties to the divorce were a husband who owned a marina and a wife who made $300 per week. The prenuptial agreement gave ownership of a marital home to the wife, but no other marital property. At the time of the agreement (before the marriage), neither party owned a home.

Later, the married couple purchased a home in need of repair. Those repairs were never made, and the house's condition further deteriorated. At the time of the divorce, the couple owed tens of thousands of dollars on the mortgage above what the home was worth. The trial court held that under these circumstances, the premarital agreement was invalid. The soon-to-be- ex-wife would receive nothing but debt if she were to receive only the house in terms of property division. In essence, enforcement of the prenuptial agreement would have rendered her bankrupt, while the ex-husband remained financially secure.

Massachusetts residents looking to explore their options involving a prenuptial or antenuptial agreement or seeking to enforce or rescind such an agreement should contact the experienced attorneys at Aceto, Bonner & Cole PC.

Keywords: Prenuptial agreements, second look doctrine, Massachusetts divorce, property division, enforcing prenuptial agreements.