Louisiana takes this special examination to the next stage by requiring prior court authorization before a post-marital agreement can take effect. Although the Acurio case does not contain a post-uptiale agreement, this provision was relevant to the validity of its marital agreement. The parties filed for their second divorce in 2009 and Danielle filed a motion to avoid the marriage agreement. Their argument, which the Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately accepted, is that the agreement did not meet the legal formalities. It was not authenticated – a term specific to Louisiana civil law – but it was also not performed «under the private signature, which was duly recognized by the spouses.» The parties did not acknowledge that the document contained their signatures in the manner prescribed by law until they were annulled during their divorce proceedings in 2009 – not before the marriage. The question for the Louisiana Supreme Court, therefore, was whether the confirmation should take place before witnesses before the marriage, or only at some point before the execution. As Louisiana is a state of community property, a marriage contract can help make things easier in the event of a divorce. Otherwise, the state considers everything acquired during the marriage to be a co-ownership, and it is divided into 50/50. The distribution of assets, such as family businesses, estates and pension plans, can be particularly difficult. Having it formulated in a marital agreement can streamline things in the event of a divorce. As their names suggest, a marriage is developed before the conclusion of a legal marriage. A post-marital agreement is drawn up after the marriage.
It could be right after or after years of marriage. Post-nuptial agreements offer the same protection, but there is one big difference: Louisiana requires that post-nuptial agreements have judicial authorization. They are usually signed if there is a significant change after the couple is already married. This may include obtaining an inheritance, a career change or the birth or adoption of a baby. In recent decades, couples have taken more control over their marriages, which implies greater freedom to define the conditions of dissolution. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, couples began to use more pre-marital agreements and tried to regulate not only the estates of the first spouse, but also the financial consequences of a divorce. In the 1970s, the Pre-Marital Agreements Act was significantly amended, in line with social and legal developments, all of which strengthened the state`s more relaxed grip on marriage. Gary Galetta learned in the strongest way that New York is a stick for formalities (a statement that also applies in other legal contexts). He and his future wife Michelle had signed a marriage pact about a week before the wedding, which provided that their property would remain separated in the event of a divorce and that neither party would seek by the other party.
In a 2013 ruling, the state`s highest court ruled that the agreement was unenforceable because the signatures had not been properly «recognized» while the agreement had been signed and signed in writing – the two requirements of the law. On the signature page, spaces had been left empty for the signatures and dates of the games, which had to be filled by hand.