---

SIGNIFICANT CASES

DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002)
Twenty years after the leading case on prenuptial agreements was decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Osborne ( Jacob Atwood represented the wife in that case - see Osborne v. Osborne, 384 Mass. 591 (1981) ), the SJC took another opportunity to clarify and expand the standard by which prenuptial agreements would be judged. Atwood & Cherny represented Mr. DeMatteo, who had entered into a prenuptial agreement with his wife just prior to their marriage and sought to have it enforced at the time the marriage ended. The trial judge found the agreement at trial to be unenforceable, and the firm filed an application for direct appellate review with the Supreme Judicial Court. In a unanimous decision written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, the court adopted Atwood & Cherny's argument that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard to the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement and reaffirmed and expanded upon the purpose of prenuptial agreements, their difference from separation agreements and how courts and lawyers should approach them in their application for the future.

SIGNIFICANT CASES

• ​Young v. Young,  81 N.E. 3d 1165 (2017)
• Van Arsdale v. Van Arsdale, 477 Mass. 218 (2017)
• Rodman v. Rodman, 570 Mass. 539 (2015)
• Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230 (2014)
• ​Vedensky v. Vedensky, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 768 (2014)
• Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286 (2009)
• Austin v. Austin, 445 Mass. 601 (2005)
• DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002)
• Krock v. Krock, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 528 (1999)
• Cricenti v. Weiland, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 785 (1998)
• Kendall v. Kendall, 426 Mass, 238 (1997), cert. denied, 118 U.S. 23669 (1998)
• Rosenberg v. Rosenberg​, 33 Mass App. Ct. 903 (1992)
• Bacon v. Bacon, 26 Mass. App. Ct 117 (1988)
• Wansong v. Wansong, 395 Mass. 154 (1985)
• Dominick v. Dominick, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 85 (1984)
• Rolde v. Rolde, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (1981)
• Osborne v. Osborne, 384 Mass. 591 (1981)​