For those considering getting married in California, marriage contracts may be a smart option, but they are not suitable for everyone. Consider talking to a California family lawyer if you have any additional questions. It is therefore good practice to provide for full disclosure of all income, assets and liabilities of the parties under the contract and to recognize the parties that they have exchanged tax returns. The parties should also state in the agreement that they have waived any disclosure beyond that provided. 3. Avoiding charges of breaching public order provisions in an agreement to impose moral or religious behaviour on the parties during marriage, restrict the obligations of assistance of children and remove the power of the Court to make custody decisions in the event of divorce is contrary to public policy and may render the whole agreement unenforceable. So it is a good idea to have a provision that the agreement is separable. Creating marriage contracts is often a very difficult and emotional experience for couples. While any contract can be difficult to negotiate, the combination of the need to create potentially long and complex financial arrangements, couples with the emotional tension that seems to be inherent in negotiating a marriage agreement, can make the most difficult process facing a couple planning a marriage. Or, as a client of his third marriage once told the writer: “Everyone hates doing it, and that`s why most people give up and keep their noses, close their eyes and jump into the pool in the hope of the best. Then, if things go wrong, you earn all the money from the lawyers in the divorce courts. The most sensitive question is whether an agreement requiring lump sum payments is not applicable because it promotes divorce. In Dawley, the Supreme Court distinguished between terms that encourage or encourage dissolution (invalid) and conditions that tailor the parties` property rights to their (valid) needs.
That is why, in one case, a Jewish couple signed a “kethuba” in which, in the event of a divorce, the husband promised to give his wife his separate home and $500,000 or half of his fortune, depending on the highest value. The court found that the agreement was so broad that it “destroyed a marriage that otherwise existed” and invalidated the agreement. (Marriage of Noughrey (1985) 169 Cal App.3d 326.) In another case, The court upheld the agreement in which the 76-year-old millionaire husband promised to pay $100,000 to his 46-year-old fiance if they divorced because the payment was calculated to compensate for the loss of marriage assistance from a previous marriage and was therefore an “adequate reorganization of property rights based on the couple`s needs and wishes” even though the marriage lasted only one year.