Osborne v. Osborne 384 Mass. 591, 428 N.E.2d 810 (1981) David was lucky enough to marry an heiress named Barbara. David had no assets, but did just graduate med school. On the day of their marriage they signed an ante-nuptial agreement (aka a prenup). The ante-nuptial agreement stated that each party disclaimed all marital property rights. The ante-nuptial agreement also included a full disclosure of each party's assets. Unfortunately, they got a divorce. David went to court to get the ante-nuptial agreement declared invalid. He asked for spousal support and a division of marital property. David argued that ante-nuptial agreement should be considered void ab initio as being against public policy because: They are not compatible with and denigrate the status of marriage. They facilitate divorce by providing inducements to end marriage. A contract waiving alimony may force a spouse to become dependent on the State (aka welfare). The Trial Court found for David and awarded him a share of the marital property. Barbara appealed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found that the Massachusetts Legislature had recently enacted no-fault divorce, and so the public perceptions of divorce were changing. The Court found that an ante-nuptial agreement doesn't encourage divorce in the same way a will doesn't encourage death. The Court found that in the alternative, they'd be encouraging incompatible couple to stay together for "a lifetime of misery" and that wasn't good public policy. The Court found that there were some limitations on ante-nuptial agreement. Mainly that there must be full disclosure of assets, and that the courts had the right to modify them in order to preserve equity.