Marital Property Agreement Case Study

667 Words3 Pages
Nuptial agreement According to the Law Commission definition of marital property agreement, it can be divided into the following three types: First, Pre-nuptial agreement means the agreement made between the spouses between they inter into the marriage; Second, Post-nuptial agreement means the agreement made between the spouses after they enter into the marriage; Last but not least, the separation agreement would be made at the ending of a relationship. In both pre nuptial and post nuptial agreement, both parties sets out what they need in the content, which in some circumstances, those changes may not be able to foreseen, therefore it involved a prediction of future. For example, people who likely to enter into the agreement are the high net worth couple that want to make clear and protected their wealth. In contrast, separation agreement is focusing in deal with a known reality. Yet we will only be focus on pre-nuptial agreement and post-nuptial agreement in this report, as it is the factor that may affect the court to consider, in order making a decision of the division of assets. In the traditional approach, pre-nuptial agreement was not recognised by court as it have prediction of the ending of the relationship before it had even started . In later years, Thorpe LJ said that a pre-nuptial agreement would gave very limited significance weight when the court considering the issue of ancillary relief . Currently, the judges have been regard to pre-nuptial agreement as part of the “all the circumstances of the case” when they consider dividing the assets between the parties on divorce issue. In the recent case of Radmacher v Granatino , the wife is a wealthy German woman and the husband is French who sooner gave up his own... ... middle of paper ... ... the agreement in order to avoid the obligation toward their children , it maybe unfair if only according to the pre-nuptial agreement to decide the parties assets . Law commission also states that the court will have to access fairness, both parties financial needs, entitlement to compensation, it would be unfair to hold the parties to the agreement instead of making an order in different terms . The “Real need” of the parties also have to take into account besides deciding whether the agreement is fair, Lord Philips identified it as: “Compensation of long-term financial consequences generated by the devotion of one partner to the family at home” When the marriage came to an end and both parties decided to live on their separate ways, if would be unfair to hold their agreement if one partner left in a predicament of real need and another party enjoy a sufficiency.

More about Marital Property Agreement Case Study

Open Document