Ansin v. Craven-Ansin

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Family Law

Family Lawmarital agreementspostnuptial agreementsdivorceenforceabilitypostnuptial agreementmarital agreementpublic policy

Facts

After nineteen years of marriage and marital difficulties, the husband told the wife he needed her to sign a marital agreement if the marriage was to continue; the parties briefly separated, then resumed living together while negotiating the agreement through separate counsel. In 2004 they signed a written agreement providing that, upon divorce, the wife would waive any claim to the husband's Florida real-estate interests and other assets in exchange for $5 million, thirty percent of appreciation in marital property after the agreement, temporary use of the marital home, medical insurance, and life insurance protection. The wife knew the husband wanted to protect his passive, difficult-to-value Florida real-estate interests, which the parties' financial advisor had listed using a $4 million to $5 million placeholder value because exact valuation was speculative. More than two years later, after continued efforts at the marriage and later separation, the husband filed for divorce and sought to enforce the agreement.

Issue

Are marital or postnuptial agreements contrary to public policy in Massachusetts? If not, under what standards are they enforceable, and was this agreement enforceable on the facts found here?

Rule

Marital agreements are not contrary to public policy and may be enforced in Massachusetts, but they are subject to careful judicial scrutiny because spouses are not bargaining at arm's length and remain in a confidential, fiduciary relationship. Before enforcing such an agreement, a court should determine at minimum whether: (1) each party had an opportunity to obtain separate legal counsel of his or her own choosing; (2) there was no fraud or coercion in obtaining the agreement; (3) both parties fully disclosed all assets before execution; (4) each spouse knowingly and explicitly waived in writing the right to judicial equitable division and other marital rights in the event of divorce; and (5) the terms were fair and reasonable both at the time of execution and at the time of divorce. When enforceability is challenged, the spouse seeking enforcement bears the burden of satisfying these criteria.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After 14 years of marriage in Boston, Maya Rowan and Daniel Pike signed a written marital agreement while trying to repair their relationship. At divorce three years later, Maya argues the agreement is void because agreements made during marriage necessarily undermine the marital relationship and are against public policy.

How should a Massachusetts court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that marital agreements are not contrary to public policy in Massachusetts. But because spouses are not bargaining at arm's length and remain in a fiduciary relationship, such agreements require heightened judicial scrutiny before enforcement, including review of counsel, voluntariness, disclosure, waiver, and fairness at execution and at divorce.