The Burtoff case from 1980 remains the standard for evaluating the validity of a prenup in D.C. In that case, Husband and Wife signed a prenup that set lump sum amounts of alimony in the event of divorce: $10,000 if the marriage lasted less than a year; $25,000 if the marriage lasted one to three years; $35,000 if the marriage lasted longer than three years; and $50,000 if Husband were to die while they were still married. 

‍
Wife wanted to throw out the prenup in the divorce proceedings, so she contended that prenups setting alimony should be declared invalid because it goes against public policy. The court disagreed with Wife and declared that prenups considering a divorce and setting alimony should not be nullified.
Instead, the court stated that prenups should be scrutinized more carefully than a regular contract because of the contracting parties’ close relationship. Keep in mind that this was back in 1980 before D.C. adopted the UPAA.

‍
The court went on to explain how they will scrutinize prenups more carefully. First, it will review fairness; second, it will review whether spouses signed the agreement voluntarily and fully understand the other spouse’s financials. In the Burtoff case, the court determined the prenup was fair, Wife signed it voluntarily, and she had adequate knowledge of Husband’s financials. 

‍
Burtoff v. Burtoff, 418 A.2d 1085 (D.C. App. 1980)

Husband and Wife signed a prenup that stated that each spouse would keep their own separate property in the event of a divorce. At the time of the divorce, Wife requested her share of Husband’s pension, even though it was considered his separate property. She argued that under ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act), there are protections for the former spouses of pension owners. She should have her fair share of this in the property distribution. 


The result? The court disagreed with Wife; it decided that in D.C. if you waive your right to your spouse’s pension in a prenup, you cannot later rely on the protections in ERISA to receive a portion of the pension. In other words, if you agree in your prenup that you won’t have a right to split up your spouse’s retirement money, ERISA will not later “save” you with its former-spouse protections. The domestic relations laws of D.C. will uphold the prenup and not give you a portion of the pension.

Critchell v. Critchell, 746 A.2d 282 (D.C. App. 2000