Ansin v. Craven-Ansin
457 Mass. 283, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 404, 929 N.E.2d 955 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A postnuptial (marital) agreement is enforceable in Massachusetts if the party seeking enforcement proves it was not the product of fraud or coercion, was based on full financial disclosure, and its terms were fair and reasonable both at the time of execution and at the time of the divorce.
Facts:
- Kenneth Ansin (husband) and Cheryl Craven-Ansin (wife) were married in 1985.
- The husband's assets included a significant, non-controlling interest in family-owned Florida real estate trusts, the value of which was uncertain and was assigned a 'placeholder' value of $4-5 million on financial reports.
- In late 2003, the couple began experiencing marital problems.
- In early 2004, the husband stated that he needed the wife to sign a marital agreement for the marriage to continue. After a six-week separation, the wife agreed to sign an agreement in an attempt to preserve the marriage.
- From April to July 2004, each party, represented by independent counsel, negotiated a marital agreement.
- The final agreement, signed in July 2004, provided that in a divorce, the wife would disclaim her interest in the husband's Florida real estate in exchange for $5 million plus 30% of the appreciation of other specified marital property.
- The agreement included acknowledgments of full financial disclosure and that it was signed freely and voluntarily.
- The parties remained married for over two years after the agreement was signed, during which time they purchased and renovated a new home together, before the husband filed for divorce in November 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Ansin (husband) filed a complaint for divorce against Cheryl Craven-Ansin (wife) in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court.
- The husband sought enforcement of the 2004 marital agreement.
- The trial judge in the Probate and Family Court upheld the agreement, finding it was valid and enforceable.
- A judgment enforcing the agreement was entered.
- The wife appealed the judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted both parties' applications for direct appellate review, bypassing the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a postnuptial (marital) agreement, entered into by spouses to settle their rights and obligations in the event of a divorce, enforceable in Massachusetts?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, C.J.
Yes, a postnuptial (marital) agreement is enforceable in Massachusetts if it withstands heightened judicial scrutiny. The court recognized that while parties should have the freedom to contract, the context of an ongoing marriage presents opportunities for coercion. Therefore, such agreements are distinct from premarital agreements (where parties can walk away from the marriage) and separation agreements (where the marriage is already over). To be enforceable, the spouse seeking enforcement bears the burden of proving that the agreement meets a five-part test: (1) each party had an opportunity to obtain separate legal counsel; (2) there was no fraud or coercion; (3) there was full disclosure of all assets; (4) each spouse knowingly waived their right to a judicial division of assets in writing; and (5) the terms are fair and reasonable both at the time of execution and at the time of divorce. Applying this test, the court found the Ansin's agreement enforceable because both parties had experienced counsel, there was no evidence of fraud or coercion, the wife was aware of and accepted the 'placeholder' value for the speculative real estate assets, and the terms were fair at execution and remained so at the time of the divorce.
Analysis:
This case establishes for the first time in Massachusetts that postnuptial (marital) agreements are legally enforceable. The decision is significant for creating a new, specific test that imposes a heightened standard of scrutiny on these agreements, placing the burden of proof squarely on the party seeking enforcement. By blending principles used to evaluate premarital and separation agreements but tailoring them to the unique pressures of an ongoing marriage, the court provides a clear framework for both drafting and challenging such contracts. This precedent fills a major gap in Massachusetts family law and aligns the state with the majority of jurisdictions that recognize such agreements.
