What a Recent Massachusetts Appeals Court Decision Means for Spouses with a Prenuptial Agreement or Considering One

By Catherine E. Spanu • September 25, 2026

If you signed a prenuptial agreement before your wedding, you probably assumed it would settle most of the financial questions that would arise if your marriage ever ended. A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision is a reminder that “settled” often depends on exactly how an agreement was worded and that courts will hold spouses to that wording.

Background

In Liz L. v. Ursel U., a couple signed a prenuptial agreement ten days before their wedding in 2000. The husband had substantial family wealth, including interests in a family business and multiple trusts, much of which the agreement shielded from division in the event of divorce. The wife had far less property of her own at the time the parties signed the prenuptial agreement.

After 19 years of marriage and two children, the wife filed for divorce. For the purposes of the divorce, the parties agreed the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable but disagreed as to its interpretation. A Probate and Family Court judge held a ten-day trial, after which she issued a lengthy decision and judgment. Both spouses appealed different parts of the judgment, and the Appeals Court’s opinion addressed three major issues: how long alimony would last, what counted as “separate property” versus “marital property” pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement, and how advance payments of legal fees should be credited against a spouse’s share of the marital estate.

Key Points for Divorcing Spouses and Couples Considering a Prenuptial Agreement

The law in effect when a prenuptial agreement is signed, not the law in effect at the time of divorce, typically controls.

The husband argued that a 2012 law (the Alimony Reform Act), which generally stops the payment of alimony once the paying spouse reaches retirement age, should apply and that his alimony obligation should terminate at that time. The Appeals Court disagreed. Because the prenuptial agreement was signed in 2000, long before the Alimony Reform Act became law, and the prenuptial agreement didn’t say anything about applying future changes in the law, the Court held that the law as it existed in 2000, not the law in effect at the time of the divorce, applied to the agreement.

What this means: If your prenuptial agreement was signed years (or decades) ago, later changes to Massachusetts family law may not automatically apply to it. Courts will look closely at whether the agreement expressly states it should be interpreted under future law. If it’s silent, prior law can still control, for better or worse, depending on which spouse the prior law favors.

Courts read prenuptial agreements as a whole, and specific wording will affect the Courts’ interpretation.

The Appeals Court’s lengthy opinion devotes many pages to parsing the exact language of the prenuptial agreement with respect to alimony. Because the agreement provided that the parties “will” negotiate alimony “to be paid,” rather than using permissive language like “may,” the Court found this created a binding, indefinite obligation for the husband to pay alimony to the wife and not merely a right to alimony that the wife could choose to pursue. Words like “will,” “shall,” and “must” are treated as mandatory; words like “may” are treated as optional.

What this means: The specific verbs and phrasing in your prenuptial agreement carry significant legal weight. An agreement that merely preserves a spouse’s right to seek alimony is very different from one that obligates a spouse “to pay” alimony. If you’re negotiating a prenuptial agreement now, precision in drafting isn’t a technicality, rather it can determine the outcome of your divorce decades later. The importance of experienced counsel and careful drafting cannot be understated.

“Separate property” exclusions in a prenuptial agreement may be narrower than they seem.

The husband argued that his interests in a family company should automatically be excluded from division because they fit the prenuptial agreement’s definition of “Interests in the Company,” regardless of when or how he acquired them. The Appeals Court disagreed, holding that only interests that also independently qualified as the husband’s “separate property” (for example, assets listed on an exhibit to the agreement or assets acquired through specific means like inheritance or gift) were excluded from division. Company shares and interests acquired during the marriage through his employment didn’t meet the narrow definition used in the agreement and thus were divisible.

What this means: A prenuptial agreement that lists categories of excluded assets doesn’t necessarily exclude everything that falls into that category forever. Timing of receipt of an asset can impact how it will be considered, depending on the wording of the agreement. Courts will examine whether an asset also satisfies the prenuptial agreement’s core definition of “separate property.” The Appeals Court also noted that reading the exclusion too broadly would let the husband convert marital assets into assets that were protected from division upon divorce simply by funneling them through a business, an interpretation the court called “unjust and absurd” and refused to follow.

Advance payments (like legal fees) need to be credited consistently.

The parties had stipulated in writing during the divorce proceedings that legal fees paid in their divorce action would be treated as an “advance distribution” credited against each spouse’s ultimate share of the marital estate. The trial judge deducted the wife’s legal fees from her share but never added those fees back into the total pool of assets being divided and never deducted the husband’s fees from his share. The Appeals Court found this was an error, since the stipulation required both spouses’ advances to be added back into the marital pot, divided proportionally, and then deducted from each spouse’s own share.

What this means: If your divorce involves advance payments of any kind (whether for legal fees, living expenses, or otherwise), make sure the math is done the same way for both spouses. Skipping the “add back” step can quietly shift thousands (or, as here, much more) of dollars from one spouse’s share to the other.

The Bottom Line

This case doesn’t change Massachusetts law, but applies well-established contract principles to a highly detailed and carefully drafted prenuptial agreement. It is a useful illustration of a few important principles for anyone with a prenuptial agreement or anyone considering signing one:

Wording drives outcomes. Courts interpret prenuptial agreements the same way they interpret any contract: based on the plain language, read as a whole, with every word given meaning.
Timing matters. Absent clear language to the contrary, the law in place when a prenuptial agreement was signed, not the law in place at the time of divorce, will govern.
Definitions have limits. Broad category exclusions (like “interests in the company” or “trust interests”) don’t automatically override a prenuptial agreement’s core definition of what counts as separate, non-divisible property in the event of divorce.
Details compound. Even administrative provisions, like how legal fee advances are credited, can significantly affect the final division of assets if not handled correctly.

If you’re negotiating a prenuptial agreement, or trying to understand how an existing one will be interpreted in a divorce, these types of issues are worth reviewing closely with an experienced attorney before a dispute arises — not after.

Categorized: Prenuptial