## Facts

- Vergestene Cooper (wife) and Bernard Cooper (husband) were married for about 25 years.
- After the wife discovered the husband’s extramarital affair, the parties attempted to reconcile and executed a written reconciliation agreement (June 26, 2000).
- The agreement provided that if the husband was unfaithful again or if the marriage ended, he would accept fault for separation/divorce and assume specified financial obligations, including payment of certain household expenses, maintenance of life and health insurance, payment of their youngest daughter’s college tuition, and transfer of one-half of future retirement payments to the wife.
- The husband continued the affair after signing and later moved out without notice; the wife filed for dissolution and sought enforcement of the agreement in the decree.
- The district court found the reconciliation agreement valid and incorporated its terms into the dissolution decree’s financial provisions.
- The court of appeals reversed the property-distribution provisions based on the agreement, concluding it was unenforceable as contrary to public policy because it reintroduced marital fault into a no-fault dissolution regime.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a postnuptial reconciliation agreement triggered by marital misconduct is void as against public policy in a no-fault dissolution system.
2. If not void, how such an agreement may be considered in property division and related financial orders governed by Iowa’s statutory “equitable” standards.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court rejected the view that reconciliation agreements tied to misconduct are categorically unenforceable on public-policy grounds.
- The Court held the reconciliation agreement could be enforceable as a postnuptial contract, evaluated under general contract principles and equitable constraints.
- The Court ruled that dissolution courts must still comply with Iowa’s statutory requirement to enter a just and equitable property division; an agreement may significantly affect the outcome but cannot compel an inequitable result.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals’ blanket refusal to enforce the agreement and remanded for proceedings consistent with these principles.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa’s no-fault dissolution policy eliminates the need to prove fault to dissolve a marriage and limits court-imposed fault-based financial punishment, but it does not bar spouses from entering voluntary postnuptial agreements that assign financial consequences to conduct in the course of reconciliation.
- Reconciliation/postnuptial agreements are assessed under ordinary enforceability standards (including voluntariness, fairness, disclosure, consideration, and consistency with law and public policy).
- In dissolution proceedings, a valid marital agreement may be a major factor in shaping financial outcomes, but the court retains independent authority and responsibility to ensure the final property division and related orders are equitable under the governing statute.
- Courts may decline to enforce contractual terms that operate as an unreasonable penalty or produce a materially inequitable result when applied at dissolution.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court held that reconciliation postnuptial agreements conditioned on future misconduct are not void per se in a no-fault divorce system; they may be enforced as contracts, but only within the dissolution court’s continuing duty to craft an equitable financial decree under Iowa law.


In re Marriage of Cooper, 769 N.W.2d 582 (Iowa 2009)