In 1995, the Family Code of the Russian Federation was commissioned. The norms of the new Code differ from the Code of Marriage and the RSFSR family of 1969. In particular, the new law introduced the Institute of Marriage Agreement. Lawyers still argue about the need to introduce such innovation.
I propose to discuss Pros and cons of marriage contract.
In accordance with the Family Code, the legal regime of the spouses is divided into legitimate and contractual.
The legal regime of property involves equal rights and obligations of spouses.
Negotiated - the ability to change the principle of equality. I suppose the possibility of changing the principle of the equality of spouses by an undoubted plus. The law provides an opportunity to agree: how will the property acquired in marriage will be distributed, who will bear the burden of its content, ways to participate in each other's income, the procedure for carrying out expenses by each spouse, identify the property that will be transferred to each of the spouses in the event of a marriage termination, and Also agree and include any provisions relating to property. If the family disintegrates, in the presence of a marriage contract, the number of disputes and disagreements comes down to a minimum. You objected that the integrity and educationalness of spouses and so, without a marriage contract, reduces the number of disputes and disagreements to a minimum. However, there is an acute conflict situations. It is necessary to minimize them.
Our citizens are not accustomed to formalized contractual relations. For many years we were inspired that the family is a single whole. He married - it means it was sold. Marriage is for life, etc. But other values came to the nineties. Our life has changed dramatically, the legislation changes. Therefore, in this case, the marriage contract is salvation.
Which one then Minus marriage contract?
The most significant minus is the opportunity to get into the dependence of one of the spouses. The so-called psychological dependence can turn into a material. How to avoid this? According to the norms of the law, its notarization certificate is a prerequisite for the marriage contract. The legislator specifically introduced the notary to protect people from deception. The notary necessarily obliged to clarify the consequences of the conclusion of a marriage contract. And if one of the parties declares against the conclusion, the notary will refuse his certificate, and the contract, even if it is signed by the parties, will be a negligible transaction.
If nevertheless, the contract was concluded on imposed conditions, significantly violating the rights of one of the parties, that is, legal mechanisms for appeal.
I believe that the marriage contract is the right institute of law.
And you?