Prenuptial Agreement

The Appeals Court reversed a Probate Court judgment upholding a prenuptial agreement, the proponent of which was the husband, a biologist, who drafted it himself.  The Appeals Court focused on a variety of factors in its decision to invalidate the agreement.  Neither party had counsel. There was no evidence that the wife, also a biologist, had been advised to obtain counsel.  There was no discussion of marital rights in the agreement, no discussion of how marital rights would be altered by the agreement – and, importantly, no demonstration of the parties’ understanding of those rights and the effect of the agreement.  Most critical to the Appeals Court, however, was the absence of an express waiver of marital rights in the document, an explicit requirement since Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666 (1979).   Eyster v. Pechenik, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 773 (May 23, 2008).