A marriage contract can be a useful tool for wealthy individuals and families trying to preserve wealth for future generations. If either part of a marriage, next to England and Wales, has a connection to another country, there are international considerations and implications to consider when considering a marriage contract. This could be due to the place where they live, where they reside or their nationality or where their assets are established. These agreements can be entered into under the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act provides that agreements are considered contracts if they are entered into with the free consent of the parties. [7] However, section 23 of the same Act provides that a contract may be null and void if it is contrary to the law or contrary to public order. [8] In Australia, pre-marital and post-marital agreements are referred to as „financial agreements“ and binding financial agreements can be made before marriage, during a marriage or after a divorce order. These agreements bind the parties and exclude the jurisdiction of the family court for the cases they cover, provided that they meet the following requirements: in practice, marriages may violate canon law in several respects. For example, they cannot prepare for a marriage on terms that concern the future. According to the Code of Canon Law, „a marriage linked to a condition of the future cannot be concluded effectively“. (CIC 1102) A marriage contract is only valid if it is concluded before the marriage. After a couple`s marriage, they can draft a marriage contract. Most U.S.

states recognize marriage contracts as valid contracts, just like all other contracts. This is usually subject to compliance with requirements, including: circumstances may change during a marriage and you could then consider a post-marital contract or check a marriage contract on that date. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about marriage contracts. While marriage contracts in England and Wales have no legal basis (laws are different in England and Wales and Scotland), marriage contracts are likely to be respected by the English courts if they are established correctly and if they fulfil the required guarantees. This is explained by the pioneering case of Radmacher vs. Granatino in 2010, in which the Supreme Court clarified for the first time that a marriage contract would be maintained unless a person could show why this should not be the case. The Supreme Court said: a couple entered into a perfectly reasonable marriage contract 10 years ago, which essentially stipulated that in the event of separation, wife would retain her shares in an airline worth about £500,000 at the time, and that husband would retain her shares in a pharmaceutical company worth around £1 million at that time and that she would share all the assets acquired jointly in shares. Equal. like a house bought in common. It turned out that the couple never bought a joint property and the wife`s airline shares reached their value at just £50,000, while the husband`s pharmaceutical shares were pushed to a value of £2.5 million by a promising vaccine study. If they separated tomorrow, the husband would do well at first glance, wouldn`t he? Not at all. It`s not about leaving all the money in one page when divorced, because the court would (rightly) repeal a document that did.

It`s about avoiding the relentlessness and huge costs that can result from a divorce dispute by conducting a reasonable discussion before/after marriage about the financial landscape of divorce. . . .