In Washington State, parties can revoke or revoke a marriage contract by their actions. However, a marriage contract that is valid and enforceable at the time of its execution may be annulled by the conduct of the parties during their marriage. Cf. In re Marriage of Fox, 58 Wn. App. 935, 938, 795 P.2d 1170 (1990) (on the ground that an antenuptial contract valid and enforceable at the time of its performance had been terminated by the parties because of the conduct of the parties during their marriage and their mix of separate and communal property). If the parties have not amicably complied with the provisions of a marriage contract, the court is not obliged to execute it, but may determine the intentions of the parties, taking into account the circumstances before and during the marriage, in order to determine its binding effect. The Texas 14th District Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the trial court`s decision. As the Court of Appeal explained, there is no uniform test for deciding whether a particular marriage contract is legally “unscrupulous”. Instead, the courts consider these claims “on a case-by-case basis and examine the entire atmosphere in which the agreement was reached.” Here, “the woman knew that a marriage contract would be a condition of marriage even before [the husband] visited her for the first time in Vietnam.” She received a copy of the agreement in her mother tongue. And she had the opportunity to meet with her own lawyer about the terms of the agreement. Finally, the court concluded that both parties were “mature adults” at the time of signing the agreement and, although the woman did not have the same formal education as the husband, she still had a “keen business sense” as she ran two different businesses while still living in Vietnam.

“It is generally accepted that properly executed marriage contracts are generally valid and enforceable, given the `strong public order that favours individuals who appoint and decide on their own interests through contractual arrangements`. Bloomfield vs. Bloomfield, 97 NY2d 188 (2001). Thus, it is assumed that a marriage contract is “valid and controlling, unless the disputing party discharges its very high burden of repealing it.” (Anonymous v. Anonymous, 123 AD3d 581,582 [1st Deput`t 2014]). Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 138 AD3d 30, 36 (1st Dep. 2016). “The burden of proof of fraud, coercion or overstepping lies with the party claiming the nullity of the agreement (Greiff Case, 92 NY2d 341, 344 (1998); Cohen v. Cohen, 93 AD3d 506 (1 Dep`t 2012). I agree with the majority`s analysis and introduce it in this case. However, I would like to take this opportunity to express my opinion on a proposal that has not been considered before by this court or by commentators familiar with Washington`s dissolution law; namely, that a procedural court may ignore an actually performed marriage contract if this is necessary to obtain a “fair and just” disposition of the assets and liabilities of the parties.

[1] Marriage contracts are the same as marriage contracts and prenuptial contracts. Agreements made after marriage are called conjugal or post-marital agreements. Their validity is governed by a law other than a marriage contract, but there is no apparent reason to believe that participation would not apply equally to them in this case. The woman filed for divorce about seven years after the marriage. She challenged the validity of the marriage contract. After a trial, a Houston judge said the deal was “binding.” The woman then appealed, reiterating her view that the deal was “unscrupulous” under Texas law and that she had not signed it “voluntarily.” Since the economic situation of the parties to a marriage is critical according to the above analysis, the preferred method of resolving a dispute to a marriage contract is to avoid diverting the challenge from the divorce proceedings themselves. While the Court of Appeal may and has accepted a discretionary review of a procedural tribunal`s pre-trial decision on the validity of an agreement, such a review is without the benefit of findings on the economic situation of the parties, and the courts of appeal must render a decision in a vacuum. Therefore, I do not agree with the Court of Appeal`s decision to accept discretionary review of interim measures. A recent decision by a Texas court of appeals shows how to successfully defend a marriage contract against such a challenge. In this case, it is a couple who originally met via a dating site.

The future husband lived in Houston, while the future wife lived in Vietnam. Even before the two men met in person, the husband said he “wanted his future wife to sign a marriage contract to protect her property,” according to court records. .