Austin v. Austin
2005 Mass. LEXIS 727, 839 N.E.2d 837, 445 Mass. 601 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement that waives alimony is enforceable if it was valid at the time of execution and its enforcement at the time of divorce would not leave the contesting spouse without sufficient property or maintenance to support herself. A great disparity in the parties' post-divorce lifestyles or earning potentials is not, by itself, a reason to invalidate the agreement.
Facts:
- The parties met in 1984 and lived together before marrying in May 1989.
- Two days prior to the marriage, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement; the husband had made the marriage conditional on signing it.
- At the time of execution, the husband's assets were worth approximately $1 million, while the wife's assets totaled approximately $35,000.
- Both parties had independent legal counsel, and the final draft of the agreement was prepared by the wife's attorney.
- The agreement stipulated that each party's separate property would remain separate and included a mutual waiver of alimony.
- The agreement also provided that if the marital home was owned solely by the husband at separation, he would assist the wife with relocation and provide 'support' based on factors like the length of the marriage.
- The couple was married for twelve years, had one child, and by agreement, the wife stayed home as a full-time mother.
- During the marriage, the family enjoyed an 'upper class lifestyle' and acquired a marital home.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife filed for divorce from the husband in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court (trial court).
- The trial court judge held a bifurcated trial and first determined that the antenuptial agreement's waiver of alimony was unfair and unreasonable at the time of execution and therefore invalid.
- Following a trial on the merits, the judge awarded the wife property and ordered the husband to pay $1,000 per week in alimony.
- The husband, as appellant, appealed the alimony award to the Massachusetts Appeals Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the alimony award.
- The husband petitioned for further appellate review to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (highest court), which granted review limited to the issue of the agreement's enforceability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an antenuptial agreement's waiver of alimony become unenforceable at the time of divorce due to a great disparity in the parties' earning potential and post-divorce lifestyles, if the agreement was validly executed and the contesting spouse receives substantial assets in the property division?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
No. An antenuptial agreement waiving alimony is enforceable unless it was invalid at execution or unconscionable at the time of divorce. The court analyzed the agreement's validity using a two-stage test. First, at the time of execution, an agreement is valid unless it 'essentially stripped' the contesting party of 'substantially all marital interests.' Here, the agreement was not invalid at execution merely because of a disparity in income; the wife had counsel, understood her rights, and the agreement allowed for marital property creation and provided for her support under certain scenarios. Second, at the time of divorce, an agreement is enforced unless it would leave the contesting spouse 'without sufficient property, maintenance, or appropriate employment to support herself.' In this case, because the wife was awarded the marital home (valued at $1,275,000) and $525,000 in cash, the agreement did not leave her without sufficient support, and therefore the alimony waiver is enforceable.
Dissenting - Greaney, J.
Yes. The alimony waiver is unenforceable because the agreement was invalid at the time of its execution. The majority improperly conflates the two stages of analysis by using the assets the wife received at divorce (part of the 'second look') to justify the agreement's fairness at its execution (the 'first look'). At the time of execution, the wife relinquished her right to both alimony and any claim on the husband’s assets while receiving nothing in return, as there were no marital assets yet. This effectively stripped her of all marital interests at that moment, making the agreement invalid from the start and rendering a 'second look' unnecessary.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the precedent set in DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, establishing a high bar for invalidating antenuptial agreements in Massachusetts. It clarifies that an agreement is not unfair at execution simply because it is one-sided or creates a potential for disparate post-divorce lifestyles. The ruling strongly favors the freedom of contract and private ordering, signaling that courts will enforce such agreements unless they are procedurally flawed or leave a spouse truly destitute, rather than simply in a less financially advantageous position.
