Unlike a post-marital agreement, the courts tend to favor reconciliation agreements. This is because they are meant to preserve marriage instead of compensating for „indiscretion.“ Reconciliation agreements have a much lower burden of proof in determining the validity and enforceatency of agreements. The agreement must be conscientious, fair and equitable and be entered into in good faith to be enforceable. A traditional post-marital contract could be considered if, for example, a spouse came from a cash estate or if a marriage contract could not be concluded in time before the marriage, or if there had been some kind of betrayal in the marriage and a partner was trying to demonstrate their commitment. There are often obligations that one or both parties commit to fulfilling in order to save the marriage, such as.B. stemming antisocial, addictive or destructive habits and behaviors. It will also contain the financial conditions of the division if the attempt at conciliation fails and if the divorce occurs, the non-compliance with the above-mentioned commitments being at the origin of the realization of such a scenario. There are three fundamental scenarios that our lawyers have studied for reconciliation agreements in Madison for couples who design reconciliation agreements. These different scenarios may impact legal deposit, but do not have a significant impact on the overall content and intent to enter into reconciliation agreements. A court that judges the applicability of a reconciliation agreement will look at the terms very closely.

The party seeking enforcement should bear the burden of proof of the validity of the agreement. If the terms of a reconciliation agreement are vague or there is no substantial new financial commitment from at least one spouse, it is unlikely that a court will be involved in the implementation of the agreement. For example, an agreement by one spouse to refuse a divorce application in exchange for an agreement by the other not to flirt with people other than their spouse would likely be unenforceable. There would be nothing to prevent the party rejecting the complaint from simply re-filing it, and it is not a good procedure for a court to assess precisely what the behaviour is „flirting“. This is a very high standard that must be met when drawing up monitoring contracts. This is why these agreements are often considered invalid. Although post-marital agreements can sometimes appear to be the best choice, they are often unenforceable.