While prenuptial (and even postnuptial) agreements may not seem incredibly romantic or even supportive a marriage’s long-term success, more and more people in Stockton may be seeing the logic behind them. Essentially, they can avoid the potential of disputes arising should couple’s divorce given that the treatment of their property is clearly spelt out. However, those that do sign them should think long and hard about what they are doing, because once pen has been put to paper to validate such an agreement, challenging its terms can be extremely difficult.
A Florida man is currently learning this the hard way. After he and his now ex-wife married, they decided they wanted to have children together (on top of the seven they already shared between the two of them). They conceived through in-vitro fertilization, and during the process, preserved one embryo in case they wanted to have another child. Both signed an agreement at the time stating they were they to divorce, the embryo would be destroyed.
Now, the man is currently trying to argue that the embryo should not only be preserved, but given to a stranger struggling with fertility issues so that it have the chance to be born and raised. He is attempting to argue that the embryo is a life that should be preserved. Legal precedent, however, has until this point classified it as property, and thus subject to the signed agreement.
There may be situations where one might challenge the terms of a pre- or postnuptial agreement based on elements such as good faith. Those wanting to make such an argument may want to seek the services of an experienced attorney.
