With respect to financial issues related to divorce, marital agreements are regularly maintained and enforced by courts in virtually all states. There are circumstances in which the courts have refused to apply certain parts/provisions of these agreements. In North Dakota.B, divorce courts retain the jurisdiction to amend a limitation on the right to apply for spousal support or assistance in a pre-marital contract if this would result in the spouse who waived that right in need of public assistance at the time of the divorce.  Florida and several other states have similar restrictions to prevent an outgoing spouse from becoming a community of the state after divorce under a marital agreement.  In addition, in Florida, the Pre-Trial Contracts Act, where inheritance (electoral quota) and thought rights granted to surviving spouses under state law are so strong that a waiver of the rights of the surviving spouse, enshrined in a matrimonial agreement, is enforceable with the same formality as the will (notarially and notably). In addition, marital agreements often have a sunset arrangement – they expire after a number of years – resulting in the need for post-ascending chords. A pre-marriage treaty is considered unfair and, therefore, is unlikely to be applied if it is “unacceptable”. The courts consider on a case-by-case basis whether an agreement misreprescing either spouse. In addition, people and circumstances change, so that an agreement that is just at the beginning could diminish over time. As such, the unacceptable nature of the agreement is examined at the time of the implementation of the agreement, unlike when it was implemented, because the indiscriminate application of an outdated agreement can lead to unforeseen economic difficulties for a spouse who may “shock” the conscience of the court. In addition, public mandates oppose the application of unscrupulous support agreements.
See z.B. Lewis v. Lewis, 69 Haw. 497 (1988). Independent legal advice focuses on the fact that any party with another lawyer explains the terms of the agreement to them and informs them of what is in their best interest. While it is not normally necessary for parties to a conjugal agreement to have independent lawyers, it may serve as an additional safeguard clause. Courts will be more inclined to abide by the terms of a marriage pact if it is clear that both parties had their own lawyer and that they understood the agreement they reached. Also note that a judge may revoke a marriage contract if its terms leave a party destitute or if it is otherwise considered unilateral or unfair, even if both parties have agreed to the terms. Even in countries that have not adopted UPAA/UPMAA such as New York, properly executed marriage contracts have the same presumption of legality as any other treaty.
 It is not necessary for a couple who signs a marriage pact to keep separate lawyers to represent him as long as each party understands the agreement and signs it voluntarily with the intention of being bound by its terms. There is a strong public policy that favours parties that control and decide their own interests through contracts.  There are no state or federal laws requiring adults with contractual capacity to hire a lawyer in order to enter into a marriage contract such as a marriage contract, with the exception of a California law that requires the parties to be represented by a lawyer if spousal assistance (support) is limited by the agreement.  The marriage agreement may be challenged if it is proven that the contract was signed under duress.  Whether a pre-marriage contract was signed under duress must be justified by the facts and circumstances of this case.