The marriage contract may be entered into by a woman and a man who have applied for registration of their marriage, as well as by spouses. Minors who wish to enter into a marriage contract before the marriage is registered must obtain consent from their parent or administrator, authenticated by a notary. The case concerned an appeal of an order from Mr. Francis` judge in December 2016. The parties were Swedish nationals living in the United States, Belgium and the United Kingdom. They were married on December 29, 2000 and the marriage lasted about 14 years. The husband was a racing driver and the wife was homemade. They had two children and property that was raised during the wedding for about $11 million. They had signed a series of three preliminary contracts, namely the “Niagara Agreement” on July 10, 2000, the “Ohio Agreement” on December 11, 2000 and the “Gothenburg Agreement” on December 26, 2000.
It provided that each party would retain the assets acquired independently before, during and after the marriage and that there would be no food management at the time of separation. The Ohio agreement contained a support clause that transferred jurisdiction to Stockholm Municipal Court in the event of a separation. Francis J. found that the three marital agreements were valid, including the extension clause, and that there were no tainted factors. He found that the woman had ignored the independent legal advice she had received in the United States, which stated that she should not sign the Ohio agreement. He then found the marriage contracts unfair because they did not meet the needs of the woman or children, and therefore limited his determination to the needs of the woman and did so on the basis of the 1989 Children`s Act. The woman appealed on the fact that there is no valid extension clause and that the judge wrongly limited her discretion in limiting her sentence to needs, after finding that the marriage contracts were valid but unfair. The Court of Appeal approved the woman`s finding that the extension clause was not sufficiently complete or clear and that the existence of a valid matrimonial agreement did not necessarily lead to a result based solely on need. The case was referred for evaluation. It goes without saying that any proposed marriage agreement should include a clause that its provisions are “fair, equitable and reasonable” and that each party is fully aware of the rights it may acquire or renounce, in accordance with its terms.