Osborne v. Osborne, 384 Mass. 591 (1981)
The parties executed a premarital agreement a few hours before the marriage, which provided that neither party may be entitled to the other's property and that they each waive alimony in the event of divorce. At the time of the signing of the prenuptial agreement, the wife was represented by counsel while the husband did not have representation. In addition, Atwood & Cherny's client was an heiress to a family fortune of approximately 17 million dollars and the husband did not have assets of significant value. The trial court upheld the prenuptial agreement. On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that a prenuptial agreement that regulates the rights of the parties in the event of a divorce is valid. The Supreme Judicial Court also announced that in determining the validity of a prenuptial agreement, there must be (1) full disclosure of the parties' net worth at the time of executing the agreement and free from, duress or undue coercion; (2) the agreement must be fair and reasonable at the time of the execution of the agreement; and (3) the agreement must be fair and reasonable at the time of enforcing the agreement and that it may be modified in certain circumstances, such as if a spouse would become a public charge or where a provision affecting the rights of a minor child is not in the child's best interests. Consequently, the Court enforced the prenuptial agreement and also determined that the husband did not enter into the agreement under duress even though he executed it only a few hours before the wedding and was not represented by counsel.
The parties executed a premarital agreement a few hours before the marriage, which provided that neither party may be entitled to the other's property and that they each waive alimony in the event of divorce. At the time of the signing of the prenuptial agreement, the wife was represented by counsel while the husband did not have representation. In addition, Atwood & Cherny's client was an heiress to a family fortune of approximately 17 million dollars and the husband did not have assets of significant value. The trial court upheld the prenuptial agreement. On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that a prenuptial agreement that regulates the rights of the parties in the event of a divorce is valid. The Supreme Judicial Court also announced that in determining the validity of a prenuptial agreement, there must be (1) full disclosure of the parties' net worth at the time of executing the agreement and free from, duress or undue coercion; (2) the agreement must be fair and reasonable at the time of the execution of the agreement; and (3) the agreement must be fair and reasonable at the time of enforcing the agreement and that it may be modified in certain circumstances, such as if a spouse would become a public charge or where a provision affecting the rights of a minor child is not in the child's best interests. Consequently, the Court enforced the prenuptial agreement and also determined that the husband did not enter into the agreement under duress even though he executed it only a few hours before the wedding and was not represented by counsel.