A well-developed marriage agreement may address the following financial issues: it is therefore appropriate for the court to review these agreements at the time of termination of the marriage, either by death or by divorce, to ensure that the facts and circumstances have not changed to an unacceptable extent since the implementation of the agreement. Pre-marriage and post-marriage agreements are particularly appropriate for professional men and women, as well as for anyone with significant assets. Situations where marital or post-uptial agreements are particularly useful are: For many years, Kentucky Prenups courts would not impose. It was considered that an agreement that takes into account the rights of each party after the divorce “could destabilize the marital relationship and promote or promote the separation of marriage.” See Edwardson v. Edwardson, 798 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1990). However, two decisions made by the Kentucky Supreme Court in 1990 changed this situation: Edwardson and Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990). Today, it is generally accepted that a prenup can resolve maintenance and ownership-sharing issues more easily than through divorce. Unlike parties who enter into a real estate transaction agreement at the end of a marriage, parties who enter into a marriage at the beginning of a marriage are sometimes not sufficiently likely to be protected to protect their respective interests. There are often many years between the implementation of a marriage contract and the date of its implementation.
However, in Gentry v. Our Supreme Court has established that the application of these agreements is subject to three restrictions: on the contrary, a broader and more appropriate review of the material fairness of a conjugal agreement requires that, at the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the circumstances of the parties do not exceed the contemplation of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract and that their application entails an injustice. Pamela argues that the huge increase in the value of David`s fortune makes the deal unacceptably one-sided for David. She also argues that the court erred in not allowing her to complete the discovery of David`s true fortune.