Owen v. Owen
Prenup invalid where wife did not have lawyer and it was disputed whether husband represented that his lawyer would represent both. Burden of persuasion was with party seeking to find agreement valid.
Junion v. Junion
Prenup not enforceable as (a) financial disclosure did not include reasonably forseeable future financial circumstances (b) wife did not understand agreement despite being represented by attorney and ( c) changes in circumstances due to husband’s early retirement, birth of their child and resultant disparity in assets would made application of the agreement unfair to wife.
In Re Marriage of Hartford v. Hartford
Circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it determined that husband keeping property acquired after the marriage as non-divisible property did not comport with wife’s reasonable expectations and that the agreement was therefore inequitable and not binding upon divorce.
In Re Marriage of Zernia v. Zernia
MPA was substantively unfair due to unforseen changes in circumstances including wife’s departure from work, contribution to child care and parties’ general lack of adherence to the agreement. (Not published, but citable)
In Re Marriage of Kettner v. Kettner
MPA was substantively unfair due to unforseen changes in circumstances including wife’s departure from work, contribution to child care and parties’ general lack of adherence to the agreement. (Not published, but citable)
In Re Marriage of Krejci v. Krejci
Trial court property determined that it would inequitable to enforce prenuptial agreement due to significantly change circumstances after the execution of the agreement. The parties combined their resources, including inheritances, savings and income. The marital agreement was ignored. They combined efforts and labors to the appreciation of property in a way that cannot be separately identified.
In Re Marriage of Polakowski v. Polakowski
Van Boxtel rule applies to post-judgment stipulations.
Jones v. Estate of Jones
Homestead protection can be waived in a prenuptial agreement.
In Re Marriage of Van Boxtel v. Van Boxtel
An agreement entered into after the commencement of divorce proceedings is a stipulation under Wis. Stat. §767.10(1) and is subject to the approval of the court.
In Re Marriage of Ayres v. Ayres
Postnuptial agreements are treated differently from agreements executed for the purpose of facilitating divorce. In this case, the agreement was made in contemplation of a divorce, it is a stipulation under §767.10(1), Stats. and not a postnuptial agreement.
In Re Marriage of Evenson v. Evenson
Button only applies to agreements made before or during marriage which contemplate a continuation of the marriage relation. Agreement signed after divorce was filed was a divorce stipulation and is controlled by Ray v. Ray, 57 Wis. 2d 77 (1973).
In Re Marriage of Gardner v. Gardner
Multiple issues. See full summary.
In Re Interest of Z.J.H: Spoerdler v. Hermes
Co-parenting agreement void as against public policy.
In Re Marriage of Greenwald v. Greenwald
Multiple issues. See full summary.
In Re Marriage of Webb v. Webb
Marital agreement was intended to apply at divorce, even though it does not expressly so state. Levy distinguished.
In Re Marriage of Warren v. Warren
(1) Test for change in circumstances is whether change is foreseeable. (2) If agreement is equitable, it controls regardless of other factors.
In Re Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt
Enforcement of premarital agreement would be unfair where both parties ignored agreement during marriage and assets cannot be traced.
In Re Marriage of Spencer v. Spencer
Stipulation regarding whether payments are maintenance or property division in lieu of maintenance is ambiguous. Remanded to court evidentiary hearing to determine intent of parties.
Schumacher v. Schumacher
No disclosure vitiates marital agreement. Independent knowledge of assets in this case is insufficient to substitute for actual disclosure.
In Re Marriage of Button v. Button
To be enforceable, marital agreements must have fair disclosure, be voluntarily entered into, and have fair substantive terms. The fairness of the agreement is assessed as of the time of the execution of the agreement and, if circumstances have significantly changed, the fairness is assessed again at the time of divorce.