784 OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:779
agreements that contemplated divorce would ruin the sanctity of
marriage and “lead to endless, minor litigation, and encourage the
property-owning spouse to desert the other spouse.”
23
Thus, the
common law approach to prenuptial agreements was skeptical and
paternalistic.
24
However, this began to subside with the continued
progression of women’s rights and treatment in society.
Given the rise of women’s equality, the number of women in the work
place, and the growing contractual rights of women,
25
the Florida
Supreme Court concluded in Posner v. Posner that prenuptial
agreements contemplating divorce were no longer per se void as against
public policy.
26
Other courts began to follow the trend established by
the Florida Supreme Court.
27
The adoption of the Uniform Premarital
Agreement Act (UPAA) in 1983 provided evidence of state legislatures
viewing prenuptial agreements in a different light.
28
The UPAA was an
attempt to establish conformity among states in treating prenuptial
agreements as simply a form of a contract.
29
The most notable right the
UPAA promulgated was that of prospective spouses to control their
marital contracts, specifically including a couple’s ability to control
property rights in virtually any situation not violating public policy.
30
23. Glass, supra note 22, at 92; see also Charles W. Gamble, The Antenuptial Contract,
26 U. MIAMI L. REV. 692, 704-05 (1971).
24. Allison A. Marston, Planning for Love: The Politics of Prenuptial Agreements, 49
S
TAN. L. REV. 887, 891 (1997); see also Estate of Burgess, 1982 OK CIV APP 22, & 10, 646
P.2d 623, 625.
25. Gail Frommer Brod, Premarital Agreements and Gender Justice, 6 Y
ALE J.L. &
FEMINISM 229, 253 (1994).
26. Posner v. Posner, 233 So. 2d 381, 285 (Fla. 1970).
27. See Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044, 1048 (Alaska 1987); Newman v. Newman, 653
P.2d 728 (Colo.1982); Scherer v. Scherer, 292 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. 1982); In re Bowen, 475
N.E.2d 690 (Ind. 1985); In re Adams, 729 P.2d 1151 (Kan. 1986); Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio
St. 3d 99, 464 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 1984).
28. The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act references & annotations, 9C U.L.A. 35
(2001), lists twenty-five states and the District of Columbia which adopted and enforced the
UPAA. The twenty-five states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Id. In Dematteo v. Dematteo, 762 N.E.2d 797, 809 n.28
(Mass. 2002), however, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia are listed as
adopting and enforcing the UPAA. This footnote concludes that, along with the twenty-five
states listed above, four additional states have adopted and enforced the UPAA. Those four
states are: Iowa, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Id.
29. Allison A. Marston, Planning for Love: The Politics of Prenuptial Agreements, 49
S
TAN. L. REV. 887, 899 (1997).
30. Unif. Premarital Agreement Act ' 3 (amended 2001), 9C U.L.A. 43 (1983).