A separation agreement (sometimes referred to as a property settlement agreement) is an agreement between two married spouses who have decided to separate, and may be especially appropriate in cases where the spouses share custody of a child. Most state statutes require that a separation agreement be in writing,
1 although this requirement is not as strictly construed as in the case of prenuptial ( Q
9092 to Q
9093) or postnuptial ( Q
9095 to Q
9096) agreements (for example, some New York courts permit oral separation agreements to be made while the parties are in court).
2
Planning Point: These rules vary based on state law, so the relevant state law should be carefully examined in determining whether an oral separation agreement will be enforceable.
Many of the same fairness issues that apply in determining the validity of a prenuptial agreement also apply in the case of separation agreements. Therefore, the separation agreement generally must be entered into voluntarily
3 (without the presence of fraud; general contract principles apply in determining whether duress or undue influence prevent a finding of voluntariness) and many states require that full financial disclosures be made between the parties.
4 Some states require that the terms of the agreement be substantively “fair” in all cases,
5 while other states only impose such a substantive fairness requirement if the parties have not satisfied otherwise applicable financial disclosure requirements.
6 A separation agreement that purports to waive child support obligations may be challenged on the grounds that it is against public policy and is thus unenforceable.
7
1.
See, e.g., Cal. Fam. Code § 2550; Tex. Fam. Code § 3.631(a).
2.
Sanders v. Copley, 151 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989).
3.
See Hall v. Hall, 171 So. 3d 817 (Dist. Ct. Fla. 2015).
4. Cal. Fam. Code § 1100(e);
In re Marriage of Brewer & Federici, 93 Cal. App. 4th 1334, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 849 (2001).
5.
Sharp v. Sharp, 877 P.2d 304 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
6.
Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987).
7.
See, e.g.,
Rueckert v. Rueckert, 499 N.W.2d 863 (N.D. 1993).