## Facts

- A husband and wife, married for approximately twenty-one years with two children, experienced serious marital strain and entered counseling.
- In 2004, while attempting reconciliation, they executed a written postnuptial agreement intended to settle rights and obligations in the event of divorce.
- The parties’ combined assets at the time were approximately $19 million, including the husband’s passive interests in trusts and entities holding substantial Florida real estate.
- The husband did not control management, timing, or amount of distributions from the Florida interests; distributions were variable and unpredictable, and the wife knew this.
- During negotiations, a jointly consulted financial adviser estimated the Florida interests at $4–$5 million, and the parties acknowledged the estimate was speculative.
- Each spouse had independent counsel; negotiations were extensive and involved multiple drafts.
- Under the agreement, the husband retained the marital interest in the Florida real estate, and the wife received $5 million plus 30% of the appreciation in other marital assets from the agreement date to the divorce date.
- The parties expressly waived judicial equitable distribution and agreed the agreement would satisfy all marital claims in the event of divorce.
- In 2006, the husband filed for divorce and sought enforcement of the agreement; the Probate and Family Court enforced it, finding full disclosure, no fraud or duress, meaningful waiver, and fairness at execution and at divorce.
- The wife appealed, challenging the enforceability of postnuptial agreements as contrary to public policy and asserting coercion and inadequate disclosure in this case.

## Issues

1. Whether postnuptial agreements made during an intact marriage are unenforceable as against Massachusetts public policy.
2. If postnuptial agreements are permitted, what enforceability standard applies and whether this agreement satisfies that standard (counsel opportunity, absence of fraud/coercion, full disclosure, explicit waiver, and fairness at execution and at divorce).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that postnuptial (marital) agreements are not void as against public policy and may be enforced.
- The court required rigorous judicial review of such agreements, including independent-counsel opportunity, absence of fraud or coercion, full bilateral financial disclosure, explicit written waiver of equitable division and marital rights, and fairness at execution and at divorce.
- Applying that framework, the court affirmed enforcement of the 2004 agreement.
- The court concluded the agreement was not procured by fraud or coercion, disclosure of the Florida interests met the required standard despite valuation uncertainty, the wife’s waiver was meaningful given representation and negotiation, and the terms were fair and reasonable at both relevant times.

## Legal Principles

- Postnuptial agreements between spouses are enforceable in Massachusetts if subjected to heightened scrutiny reflecting spouses’ duty of utmost good faith and loyalty during an ongoing marriage.
- Enforceability requires proof that each spouse had an opportunity for separate counsel of their choosing.
- The agreement must not be the product of fraud or coercion; courts assess the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a spouse’s free choice was overcome.
- Each spouse must make full financial disclosure before execution; disclosure must reasonably apprise the other of the nature and approximate value of property, including contingent or speculative interests.
- The parties must knowingly and explicitly waive, in writing, the right to judicial equitable division and related marital rights upon divorce.
- Courts must evaluate fairness at two points—at execution and at divorce—and decline enforcement if later circumstances render enforcement unfair or unreasonable.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts recognizes postnuptial agreements as enforceable when the proponent proves informed, voluntary consent supported by counsel opportunity, full disclosure, explicit waiver of judicial distribution, and terms that are fair and reasonable both when signed and when applied at divorce; the agreement here met that standard and was enforced.


Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, 457 Mass. 283 (2010)