AUSTRALIAPrenuptial Agreements, known as binding financial agreements, first became enforceable in Australia in 2000 with the passage of the Family Law Amendment Act 2000. Part VIII bis of the Family Law contains specific provisions concerning the supervision of such agreements by family lawyers. For a binding financial agreement to be binding, it must be signed in writing by both parties; (the original) to a party with one of the copies handed out; the indication of the extent of the marriage hope offered; and declare that both parties have received specific independent legal advice and have attached an equivalent certificate issued by an independent lawyer. In the United States, marital agreements are recognized in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and are enforceable if prepared in accordance with state and state requirements. It has been reported that the demand for marriage contracts in the United States has increased in recent years, especially for millennial couples.     In a 2016 survey conducted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), member lawyers reported that the total number of clients seeking premarital marriage arrangements has increased in recent years, particularly with the Millennial generation, with the greatest interest in protecting capital gains in the case of separate ownership, inheritance and shared ownership.  In California, a couple may waive their participation rights (common property) through a prior contract.  The agreement may limit sp assistance (although a court may set it aside in the event of a divorce if it considers the restriction to be unacceptable). The agreement can be used as a contract to make a will that requires one spouse to take care of the other in the event of death. It may also restrict inheritance law in the event of death, such as the right to inheritance allowance, the right to execution, the right to take as a predetermined heir, etc.  In California, registered national partners may also enter into a prenup. Post-marriage agreements are treated very differently in California law. Spouses have a fiduciary duty to each other, so pre-marital agreements fall into a particular category of agreements.
There is a presumption that the post-parental agreement was obtained by undue influence when a party gains an advantage. Disclosure cannot be abandoned as part of a post-marriage agreement. [Citation required] ENGLAND and WALES In England and Wales, courts have traditionally given little weight to a marriage agreement and have held that the application of marriage contracts is contrary to public policy. For example, Thorpe J. in f. F. F (Ancillary Relief: Substantial Assets), (1995) 2 F.L.R. 45, found that a marital agreement should be of “very little importance” since the allocation of assets must be carried out according to the legal formula and “cannot be significantly influenced by contractual terms.” Similarly, the court of N v. N (Jurisdiction: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) (1999) 2 FLR 745 refused to impose even part of a marital agreement in which the husband had agreed that in the event of divorce, he would take all necessary measures for religion to enable his wife to obtain a “get” allowing him to remarry in accordance with Jewish law. The court stated: “Even if the antenuptial agreement is divided in this case and the various clauses are considered separately, I think we cannot help but circumvent the principled argument that any part of a pre-marriage agreement to settle the parties` divorce cases cannot be avoided.