Recently, a movement has developed in some modern Orthodox circles to support an additional marital agreement. This is a reaction to a growing number of cases where the husband refuses to grant a religious divorce. In such cases, local authorities are not in a position to intervene, both for the sake of separation of church and state and because some halachic problems would arise. This situation leaves the woman in a state of aginut where she cannot remarry. To remedy this situation, the movement promotes a marital agreement in which the couple agrees to file their divorce, should it occur, before a rabbinical court. Article 93 of the Ukrainian Family Code provides for mandatory requirements regarding the content of the marriage contract, which stipulates that the marriage contract regulates spousal property, determines their property rights and obligations. The marriage contract can also determine the property rights and obligations of the spouses as parents, but with certain restrictions. The personal relationships of the spouses cannot be governed by the marriage contract, as can the personal relationship between the spouses and their children. This rule is also provided for in Article 93 of the Family Code of Ukraine. Marriage contracts that reduce the rights of the child and put a spouse in poor material condition are not permitted by the above mandatory rule. Under the marriage contract, neither spouse may acquire property or other property, which requires state registration. [14] Unlike all other contract laws, no review is required, although a minority of courts marry in return.
Through a prenup, a spouse can completely waive property rights, support or inheritance, as well as the voting share, and can get nothing for it. The choice of legal provisions is crucial in the prenups. Contracting parties may decide that the law of the state in which they are married governs both the interpretation of the agreement and the division of property at the time of divorce. In the absence of a legal choice clause, it is the law of the place where the parties divorce, not the law of the state in which they were married, that decides matters of ownership and support. The 2014 Report of the Legal Commission on Marital Property accepted the decision in cyclists in general and recommended the creation by Parliament of a “qualifying marriage agreement” that would create a fully binding pre-marital agreement as long as certain requirements were met. The Commission`s recommendations have yet to be implemented. Parties may waive disclosure beyond what is expected and there is no certification requirement, but this is good practice.
