However, because his assets are exhausted, Mrs. Hawley is liable to pay for these expenses. Moreover, the Antenuptial Agreement does not bar the recovery of necessaries by Mr. Hawley. It is questionable whether a spouse has the right to contract away the duties and obligations imposed by marriage, and Missouri common law, by executing antenuptial agreements such as the one involved in this case. While this issue has not been directly addressed by a Missouri court, Missouri case law anticipates the existence of separate property by respective spouses, even by use of an antenuptial agreement, but still nevertheless imposes a duty to pay for the necessaries of the other spouse. However, we do not need to reach this issue because the Antenuptial Agreement in this case does not expressly waive the maintenance sought by Mr. Hawley.
Antenuptial agreements are unique agreements which are to be strictly construed.
An antenuptial agreement must also be read as a whole in order to determine its purpose and meaning. Dissection of an agreement into small, unrelated segments causes confusion and misunderstanding that vanish when the component parts are returned to the context of the whole contract. The agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Hawley simply does not address the type of maintenance and support that is sought by Mr. Hawley. While the Agreement expressly addresses the use and control of property, it is silent as to maintenance and support. 452.335, in domestic relations actions.