亚当·凯伦著
简短的回答. 是的.
在密歇根, when a “婚前协议 is clear and unambiguous; changed circumstances do not render its enforcement unfair and unreasonable. 因此，该协议应得到执行.” 里德v. 里德，密歇根州，53岁. 应用程序. 625 (2005).
Prenuptial agreements often come up with respect to inherited 资产 and trusts; they are often times grounded in realistic expectations and mutual respect, 而不是玩世不恭或缺乏信任. 在密歇根, 和大多数合同法类似, 婚前协议几乎总是按书面形式执行. 一般, 没有欺诈, 强迫, 和胁迫, Courts do not consider the fairness of an agreement (unconscionability); rather, 法院只考虑协议是否清晰和明确. 然而, 如果有欺诈指控, 法院可考虑所作的披露, 当事人是否有律师代表, 当事人是否真实(诚实披露资产). 话虽如此，法院首先考虑的是协议的明确性. 它是否清晰明确? 如果它实际上是清晰和明确的, 诚实披露资产, 当事各方均由律师代表, 这很难, 如果不是不可能的话, 把协议搁置一边. Id.
说白了. 例如, the Courts don’t care when an asset’s value goes from $1 million to $50 million; 资产 are expected to grow, 各方要为自己的判断负责. The nature of an asset is that it grows; thus, growth and changed circumstances are foreseeable. 里德v. 里德，密歇根州，53岁. 应用程序. 625 (2005). 当当事人彼此不诚实(欺诈)时，麻烦就来了, 胁迫, and 强迫); however, 当双方签订婚前协议时，双方都清楚而诚实, the Courts go no further; and in most cases, 婚前协议将按书面规定执行. Id.
