—>

—>

—>

In the past, antenuptial agreements were regarded as against public policy and therefore null and void. However, in recent years courts and governments have recognized the ability of parties to enter into these premarital agreements.

Be aware that in England and Wales, the courts still give little weight to a prenuptial agreement and view the enforcement of these agreements as being against public policy. In Ireland, the courts are not required to enforce, and will refuse to automatically enforce, a prenuptial agreement.

If you are wondering about Sweden (Elin v. Tiger): Sweden enforces antenuptial agreements.

Antenuptial agreements are governed by general contracts principles and are generally enforced if there has been a full and fair disclosure of assets by both parties and if its terms are fair and reasonable. In this case, the agreement not to obtain alimony, attorneys’ fees or any part of the estate prior to marriage is fair and reasonable.

Additionally, there is nothing to indicate that the agreement was entered into under fraud or duress – which generally voids any contract. On the contrary, both parties have done this before and understood the benefit of this type of agreement.

So unless she can show that I failed to fully disclose my assets, or there was an unfair bargaining relationship (e.g., she signed it without the benefit of counsel), or there was some other type of fraud, the court will enforce the agreement.

Although not applicable in this case, if any of the terms of an agreement violate a statute or public policy, they will not be enforced. For example, any agreement that abrogates the right to spousal support or the obligation of a parent to support a minor child is invalid. Additionally, if the court determines that a provision of the agreement is not in the best interest of the minor child (concerning custody or visitation) it will not be enforced.

<—