Post-nuptial agreements are a relatively new development under U.S. law. Prior to the 1970s, post-post-marriage agreements were generally unenforceable. Much of this was based on the idea that a couple became a unit at the time of their marriage and that one person or unit cannot reach an agreement with itself. The negotiation of the post-uptial agreement by a party that intends to divorce shortly thereafter is an agreement reached by fraudulent incentives. Fogg v. Fogg is in 1991 in Massachusetts the case in which the Supreme Court held a post-marriage agreement because of fraudulent inducements of the unworkable contract. The woman received valuable real estate interests as part of the postal agreement and sought divorce shortly thereafter. The date of the post-nuptial agreement and the filing of the divorce (as well as financial disclosure issues) are at Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, a Case of Massachusetts, which appeared in July 2010 and allowed ancillary agreements when certain safety precautions were followed. The issue of full financial disclosure is an important issue in Burkle v.

Burkle, a California case in which the California Appeals Court confirmed the post-nuptial agreement signed by the parties. Even after the U.S. courts began to reject marriage unity as a legal theory, post-uptial ice contracts were seen as favoring divorce. [6] In the meantime, a handful of states, including Ohio, do not recognize post-marital agreements at all or recognize them only in extremely limited circumstances. Marital chords, even endorsements, are often considered taboo or not in the spirit of love or camaraderie. Critics say such contracts suggest the couple expects the marriage to fail. However, if a contract can correct financial claims, the couple could choose an agreement in the hope of maintaining marital harmony. Courts in some states, such as New Jersey, have held that a post-nup must be «fair and just» for both spouses, both at the time of signing the agreement and at the time of divorce.

But other states, including New York, are demanding that a post-Nup not be «unacceptable.» In these countries, the simple injustice is not for their own reasons for overthrowing a post-Nup.