In Bedrick v. Bedrick, the Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed for the first time the validity and enforceability of postnuptial agreements and found that postnuptial agreements are consistent with public policy. Bedrick is further recognized as the case that identifies the standards required for postnuptial agreements in Connecticut. This Article reviews the history of postnuptial agreements and compares them to prenuptial agreements. Additionally, the legislative and judicial conclusions of other states relating to the validity and enforceability of postnuptial agreements are reviewed.
The Author identifies the standards the Connecticut Superior Court applied in Bedrick when determining if postnuptial agreements are enforceable. These standards are stricter than those required for prenuptial agreements and must contemplate potential future events. Additionally, the Author asserts that after execution, the agreement should be revised periodically and be reaffirmed, thus minimizing challenges to the terms of the agreement at the time of dissolution. The Author identifies three shortcomings in Bedrick relating to standards not defined: whether the promise to forego divorce and remain married serves as adequate consideration for the agreement; what the unconscionability test actually requires; and whether the proponent of, or the challenger to, the agreement carries the burden of proof.
Bernardo G. Cuadra, ALL GOOD THINGS MIGHT COME TO AN END: POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTICUT, 34 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 57 (2012), http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol34/iss1/3