New Law on Marital Agreements

Hi there,

Today the Supreme Judicial Court rendered its decision in the case which has set the standard for marital agreements in Massachusetts.  I was counsel for the wife in the appeal with my partners, Susan Stenger and Robin Lynch Nardone. We did not try the underlying case.

The judgment is very bittersweet for us because the court adopted the standard that we proposed for marital agreements then went on to find that at the trial our client hadn't met that standard.

Marital agreements are agreements between spouses that are neither divorce agreements nor prenuptial agreements. I very strongly believe that the opportunity for coercion is high in these circumstances (Honey sign this agreement or I will leave you) and we argued first that these agreements should not be enforced, but if the court was inclined to allow them there should be a different standard for their enforcement than is used for prenuptial agreements.

The SJC agreed; Marital agreements are now enforceable in Massachusetts, BUT

They must be scrutinized by the judge to determine at a minimum whether:

        (1) each party has had an opportunity to obtain separate legal counsel of each party's own choosing;
        (2) there was fraud or coercion in obtaining the agreement;
        (3) all assets were fully disclosed by both parties before the agreement was executed;
        (4) each spouse knowingly and explicitly agreed in writing to waive the right to a judicial equitable division of assets and marital rights in the event of a divorce; and

        (5) the terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable at the time of execution and at the time of divorce. 

The spouse seeking to enforce the agreement has burden of proof on these issues. 

This will be a very useful decision for the attorneys in Massachusetts who practice domestic relations and probate law.

Best,

Nancy

Remember the Alimony!

**Breaking news**
 
Hi there!
 
The long awaited decision on alimony continuing post retirement, aka the Pierce case, came down yesterday.  This has been a much discussed issue in the press, as well as by me, here and here, over the past few months.   
 
I think the first reaction to this decision will be negative from the proponents of a formulaic alimony law, as well as those who are alimony payors; however, they should not despair. When you read the entire decision you will see that this is a very well thought out, nuanced result.  Admittedly, you have to read the entire decision in order to realize it is not as draconian as it will undoubtedly be reported.
 

The decision states that the Court CAN consider retirement as a factor, but that they must balance the legitimate desire of a payor to retire (and they do describe it as legitimate) with the then-financial needs of both parties.  Additionally, the Court must determine whether or not the separation agreement referenced retirement as a possibility at all. 

There may well be a slightly more difficult challenge for the many folks with separation agreements not referencing retirement; however, I do view this case as more helpful than not.

 
Best,
 
Nancy