Reading up on decisions of interest, including those published in this Journal, is part and parcel of keeping current on the law. In the context of matrimonial law, specifically with respect to the drafting or prenuptial agreements, the Second Department's recent decision in Rosen v. Rosen, 2021 Slip Op 01278 (2d Dep't 2021) is worth far more than a passive read. In fact, the decision is arguably worth printing out, filing in your office (or virtual office), and re-reading each and every time the matrimonial practitioner is tasked with drafting a prenuptial agreement that will invariably define the various connotations of what constitutes each party's "separate property."

At their core, prenuptial agreements are designed to accomplish certainty in the event of what matrimonial lawyers term a "Termination Event," "Dissolution Event," or "Termination of the Marriage." And while prenuptial agreements are accorded the same benefits bestowed by the law of contracts, time and again we find ourselves in the midst of litigation involving prenuptial agreements and/or reading decisions of interest involving challenges to the enforceability of prenuptial agreements and disputes as to the meaning of their terms.

A cursory Internet search reveals the unending opinions ranging from legal professionals to wedding magazines on the subject of whether or not couples need a prenuptial agreement (e.g., has either party been married before, does either party have a child or children, is one party or both parties wealthy). This article is not intended to offer another of such opinions and in fact, this author is of the view that across the board edicts about who needs or does not need a prenuptial agreement are short-sighted.