## Facts

- Donna M. Austin (wife) and Craig B. Austin (husband) married in May 1989 after cohabiting for several years.
- Two days before the wedding, they signed an antenuptial agreement drafted by the wife’s attorney.
- At signing, the husband had roughly $1 million in assets (largely business interests); the wife had about $35,000 in assets.
- The agreement disclosed each party’s assets by attached schedules, preserved each party’s separate property (including appreciation), treated other property as marital property subject to division at divorce, and included a mutual waiver of alimony.
- The trial judge found the husband conditioned marriage on execution of the agreement; the wife was reluctant but had legal advice and signed.
- The marriage lasted about 12 years and produced one child; the couple lived comfortably, with the wife largely a stay-at-home parent.
- In the divorce judgment, the wife received substantial marital assets, including the marital home (valued over $1 million) and $525,000 in cash, plus child support.
- Despite the alimony waiver, the Probate and Family Court awarded the wife periodic alimony, ruling the agreement unenforceable only as to alimony; the Appeals Court affirmed.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review limited to enforceability of the alimony waiver.

## Issues

1. Whether a mutual alimony waiver in an antenuptial agreement is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
2. Whether the alimony waiver was enforceable under Massachusetts law requiring the agreement to be valid at execution and fair and reasonable at divorce.
3. Whether conditioning marriage on signing the agreement, combined with financial disparity, rendered the agreement involuntary or otherwise invalid.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that antenuptial agreements waiving alimony are not per se invalid as against public policy.
- The court concluded the agreement was valid at execution, including adequate disclosure, opportunity for legal advice, and voluntary assent.
- The court held the agreement was fair and reasonable at the time of divorce because enforcement did not leave the wife without sufficient property or means of support.
- The court vacated the portion of the divorce judgment awarding alimony and enforced the contractual waiver.
- The court left the remainder of the divorce judgment, including property division, intact.

## Legal Principles

- An antenuptial agreement, including an alimony waiver, may be enforced if it is (1) valid at execution and (2) fair and reasonable at the time of divorce.
- Alimony waivers are not categorically barred by public policy; enforceability depends on case-specific application of the two-stage review.
- Voluntariness focuses on freedom from fraud, coercion, or legal duress; insisting on a prenup as a condition of marriage does not, by itself, establish duress where the other party had informed choice and opportunity to refuse.
- The fairness-at-divorce inquiry asks whether enforcement would leave a spouse without sufficient property, support, or means of self-sufficiency, not whether enforcement preserves the marital standard of living.
- Courts may refuse enforcement at divorce if application would produce an outcome that is fundamentally unfair by leaving a spouse without meaningful means of support.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts enforced a mutual alimony waiver in an antenuptial agreement, holding that such waivers are permissible when the agreement was validly executed and, at divorce, enforcement remains fair and reasonable because the waiving spouse retains sufficient property or support to avoid hardship.


Austin v. Austin, 445 Mass. 601, 839 N.E.2d 837 (2005)