Gene Simmons (from the band kiss) has an interesting approach to this which he wrote about in his book. He never married his long time partner and playboy playmate Shannon Tweed. But he took it even a step further having her and other live in girlfriends sign documents stating that despite living together they would not become common law married.
Trump is ok with marriage, but puts strong pre-numps in place.
Anyway, it's reading articles like this that can really turn you off to marriage as an entrepreneur. It's hard to say whether you're going to be in love with someone in 20 years, much less 1 year, so why put a legal contract on it? It might make more sense to vest your marriage over time or just take your partnership one day at a time without a contract.
AFAIK some state laws have this feature; the wife only gets half after ten years or something.
You mean 'spouse' right?
Edit: Granted, there may not be very many instances (or any for that matter) where the man is going after the woman's wealth, but the point is that the provision applies to both parties.
The courts do not favor the woman, they favor the spouse in the weaker position financially, especially if that spouse was the primary caregiver. In most cases, this is the woman.
This agreement was put in place after they were already married, right? That's what this case is basically about: determining if an agreement made in such a manner is valid.
Which is why, honestly, outsiders should know as little as possible about these situations. We can't know what actually happens so why do we want to be in a situation to demonize one person and feel sorry for another based on this lack of information?