The most recent precedent for marriage contracts is the Radmacher vs. Granatino case in 2010, in which the Supreme Court decided to give “decisive weight” to the agreement. Essentially, this pioneering case develops the marriage contracts law to the extent possible without effective legal reform (and new legislation). In addition to the reforms of UK matrimonial law advocated by the Law Commission, this paves the way for prenups in order to gain more and more authority in the event of financial comparisons until they can finally come into force. In some countries, including the United States, Belgium and the Netherlands, the marriage contract provides not only for what happens in the event of divorce, but also for the protection of part of the property during the marriage, for example in the event of bankruptcy. Many countries, including Canada, France, Italy and Germany, have matrimonial regimes, in addition to or, in some cases, in place of marriage contracts. A marriage contract, marriage contract or pre-marital contract (commonly known as Prenup) is a written contract entered into by a couple before marriage or a registered partnership that allows them to choose and control many of the legal rights acquired during marriage, and what happens when their marriage ends in death or divorce. Couples enter into a written marriage contract to replace many of the marriage laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as laws governing the distribution of property and age benefits and savings and the right to claim maintenance (spouse`s allowance) with agreed terms, provide security and clarify their matrimonial rights.   A pre-marital contract may also involve the waiver of a surviving spouse`s right to claim a share of choice in the deceased spouse`s estate.  As the name suggests, a marriage contract is concluded before the marriage. In this type of agreement, the couple determines how they will distribute their wealth if the marriage ever ends. In this sense, it is a financial instrument.
However, at present, marital and post-ïcoid contracts are not technically legally binding. The laws passed by states that adopt UPAA/UPMAA have some differences from state to state, but this legal framework has certainly made it easier for lawyers to prepare enforceable marital agreements against clients by clearly stating the requirements. For example, under Florida law, there is a very significant difference in what is required to enter into a legally binding marriage contract compared to a post-ïcoum contract. To effectively waive the rights of spouses normally available to a surviving spouse under Florida law (such as farms, election shares, exempt property, family allowances, etc.), the parties must disclose their assets and liabilities in full and fair to each other before entering into a contract. On the other hand, no financial disclosure is necessary to waive the same rights of the spouses in a pre-marital contract concluded before marriage.  However, if the lack of disclosure makes a prenup ruthless (unfair to a spouse) under Florida uniform law, it may not be applicable for these reasons.  While not mandatory in all states, it is good that both spouses are represented independently of lawyers when negotiating and entering into a terminated contract.  Provisions contained in a post-marital contract concerning the custody or maintenance of children are not applicable, nor are provisions that attempt to regulate routine aspects of the conjugal relationship.  As we explain on our side on marriage contracts, they can be a useful tool for planning in advance for the division of property during divorce, avoiding the conflict and long uncertainty that traditional procedural financial redress procedures can entail. . .