In many of these countries, marriages can also protect unstritried property and money from bankruptcy and can be used to support lawsuits and comparisons during marriage (e.g. B if a party has wrongly sold or mortgaged land set aside by its partner). In the case of international families, it is customary to introduce a so-called “jurisdiction” clause in a matrimonial agreement that sets the preference for the country where proceedings are to take place. England attaches great importance to these clauses in marriage agreements. It is very likely that England will have considerable weight in every litigation of a jurisdiction clause in the decision that is the most appropriate country to resolve a case. An agreement does not matter in the EU, where divorce takes place: all that matters is who decides first. (4) Notwithstanding subsection 2, a court may refuse to make an order under that Part if, having regard to the interests of the spouses and the objectives of justice, the court considers it more appropriate to exercise jurisdiction outside British Columbia. In British Columbia, when a marriage contract is silent on the question of jurisdiction, section 106 of the Family Law Act sets out rules for determining jurisdiction. It should be noted that section 106 applies even if jurisdiction is defined in an agreement. Given the different approaches to marriage contracts around the world, it is best to get specialist medical advice at an early stage when drawing up a marriage contract or before moving to another country. This is how couples can have the most confidence in respecting their wishes in terms of property protection during divorce. (1) On the basis of public policy, marriage contracts as a class are not explicitly applicable in English law.

The existence of an agreement and its probative value are factors which must be taken into account when the court decides whether to exercise its discretion under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, with a view to adopting provisions relating to financial provisions under section 23 or 24. Each clause is unenforceable for reasons of public policy and no legal provision has the power to compel the parties to implement any part of the agreement. Some federal laws apply to the terms that may be contained in a pre-marital agreement. The Retraitment Equity Act (REA) of 1984, passed on August 23 On August 27, 1984, President Ronald Reagan caused confusion as to whether ERISA anticipates the state`s divorce laws, thereby preventing retirement plans from complying with court injunctions that gave a spouse a portion of the worker`s pension in a divorce order. [48] A marriage contract may include declarations of waiver by which each spouse undertakes to release all rights against the other`s retirement pension that flow from both state and federal laws under marriage, as under the REA. . . .