Skip to content

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules Favorably on Validity of Postnuptial Agreements

October 15, 2010

In the 2010 Massachusetts case of Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that postnuptial agreements can be valid under certain conditions. This case was brought by a disgruntled wife who had signed an agreement during the marriage on how the couple’s assets would be distributed upon a divorce, but the case has far-reaching ramifications and can be useful in the estate planning context.

A postnuptial agreement is essentially a prenuptial agreement that is entered into after the marriage has taken place. Either of these agreements can completely ignore divorce and child support issues and be limited solely to estate planning issues. Where many married couples (especially those with children from prior marriages) are concerned about what might be done with their inheritance by the surviving spouse, this case makes it clear that under Massachusetts law they can enter into a limited postnuptial agreement, which I refer to as an Estate Planning Agreement, to prevent the surviving spouse from later disinheriting the family of the first spouse to die.

There are other ways to protect the children from the previous marriage, but those other ways have limitations. For example, under Massachusetts law, a will contract can be entered into by a married couple to prevent the surviving spouse from changing his/her will; unfortunately, a will contract would only cover assets passing through probate, yet many assets pass free of probate. Further, some spouses establish a so-called QTIP trust to provide income for life to the surviving spouse, with the eventual inheritance going to the previous family; unfortunately, the surviving spouse would have the right to make a statutory election against the decedent’s will and trust and could end up with a lot more assets than was planned.

A limited postnuptial agreement that covers estate planning issues is a document that more and more married couples may be entering into in future years, due to the great increase in blended families.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. October 18, 2010 1:02 pm

    Good to see more attention on Ansin v. Ansin-Craven, a very important case.

  2. October 20, 2010 9:10 am

    If anyone is interested in more information, we have a 2-hour program on November 9 on Marital Contracts after Ansin. David Lee, who argued the case is joined by Professor Charles Kindregan and Professor Anthony Sandoe. Sandoe will address the estate planning issues arising from the case. see above website for more information.

  3. Mark Boyer permalink
    February 15, 2011 11:37 am

    Is there anything new on the ramifications of this decision and whether there is any one who might have more information/opinions on “limited post-nuptial agreements” that cover estate planning issues only. I do not have access to the Advanced Legal Seminar with Attorney Lee and Professors Sandoe and Kindregan.

    Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: