Troubling new trend in US — Post-Nuptial Agreements
The Straits Times (Singapore)
June 18, 2000
By: Louise Branson in Washington
Once pre-nuptial agreements raised eyebrows, now comes a variant which sets out the terms of divorce even though the couple are still married
JUST three years ago, Mrs Betsy McCaughey Ross was a woman in an enviable position.
Her life spanned the heights of politics and wealth: a former lieutenant-governor of New York, she was married to super-rich financier Wilbur Ross.
Life was good.
Then came the first blow: New York’s Republican Governor George Pataki dumped her as his second-term running mate.
Wealthy husband Ross stepped in, financing her in an unsuccessful race to unseat Mr Pataki.
A fairy-tale prince saving his wife from her difficulties?
It may have looked that way at the time. It seems quite different now.
The Rosses are now divorcing. He is trying to enforce, not a pre-nuptial agreement, but a post-nuptial agreement.
That is a document he had her sign as the campaign was in full swing, setting out the terms of any eventual divorce in which he would recover any financial losses in the campaign.
As the celebrity case now goes before a court, it has thrown a spotlight on an increasingly common practice in America’s booming economy.
Post-nuptial agreements, it appears, are popping up everywhere.
For now they are controversial, just as pre-nups once were.
But pre-nups, as they proliferated, became legally accepted.
Indeed, it has been several years since the last headlines involving a pre-nup — when billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump divorced his second wife, Marla, and she got little more than US$ 1 million (S$ 1.72 million).
Mr John Mayoue, a lawyer in Atlanta, said his company’s post-nup business, though still not big, was increasing as many dot.com entrepreneurs suddenly became rich.
“Any time somebody is going to come into substantial unforeseen wealth, that is going to give them the opportunity to examine their relationship,” he said.
Websites offering offering legal services have begun advertising post-nups alongside pre-nups.
The process, it seems, has begun of making such mid-marriage agreements a fact of life in a country where almost one in two marriages ends in divorce.
While the legal implications of such agreements are thrashed out in court, many lawyers say they are certainly wary of clients who want a post-nup.
“If you have to have a post-nuptial agreement … during the course of your marriage, the marriage is doomed,” said Mr Robert Corcoran, a family-law attorney.
“That bond of trust, once broken, is over. Like Shakespeare said, you cannot unring the bell.”
Another lawyer agreed.
“You have to wonder about the real reasons for someone to do this during the course of a marriage,” said attorney Jean Campbell.
Copyright 2000 Singapore Press Holdings Limited