Opinion ID: 1469026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act

Text: [¶ 8] Dick contends that the court erred in refusing to apply the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S.A. § 608, [1] because the statute simply codifies general and long settled contract law. Dick further contends that the Legislature intentionally omitted the uniform act's provision that the act applies to any premarital agreement executed on or after the effective date. Hoag contends that the statute may only be applied prospectively to agreements executed after the UPAA's effective date. [¶ 9] The UPAA became effective on September 29, 1987. P.L.1987, ch. 302. Although the uniform act that provided the basis for the Maine act included a provision that the act applies to any premarital agreement executed on or after [the effective] date, UNIFORM PREMARITAL AGREEMENT ACT § 12, 9C U.L.A. 58 (2001), the Maine act does not contain that provision. [¶ 10] The Maine Constitution provides that [t]he Legislature shall pass no... law impairing the obligation of contracts, Me. Const. art. I, § 11, and we construe statutes to preserve their constitutionality, Town of Baldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52, ¶ 9, 794 A.2d 62, 66. Here, although Hoag filed for the divorce after the effective date of the statute, the execution of the agreement could not have been informed by an understanding of the now existing statute; we decline to apply the UPAA to this case because to do so would interfere with the contract and violate the Maine Constitution.