For decades, Italian law took a firmly hostile stance towards any agreement made by spouses – or future spouses – that sought to anticipate the economic effects of a marital breakdown. The underlying idea was clear: marriage was not a private contract, but a public institution governed by principles of solidarity and mutual support. As such, only the courts and not the couple, could decide what was fair when a marriage ended.
In recent years, however, that attitude has begun to change. The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) has gradually opened the door to greater contractual freedom between spouses, particularly where such agreements do not interfere with the fundamental rights protected by law but rather serve to regulate existing financial relationships in a fair and reasonable way.
The traditional rule: non-negotiable marital rights
Historically, all forms of prenuptial or postnuptial agreements were considered void. Article 160 of the Italian Civil Code states that “spouses may not derogate from the rights and duties established by law as a consequence of marriage.” This was long interpreted as a blanket prohibition against any agreement dealing in advance with what would happen in the event of a separation or divorce.
The rationale was twofold. First, such agreements were thought to undermine the freedom of the parties to decide on their marital status, by introducing economic incentives or penalties that might influence the decision to separate. Second, the law reserved the assessment of any spousal maintenance to the courts, based on the financial circumstances of each party at the time of the divorce.
For many years, therefore, these agreements were automatically declared void on the grounds of “unlawful cause” - in other words, they were contrary to public policy.
The turning point: a new view on private autonomy
A significant shift has emerged through recent decisions of the Supreme Court, influenced in part by developments in other European jurisdictions where prenuptial agreements are routinely recognised and help reduce litigation in family law.
The modern approach is far more nuanced. Not every agreement made “in contemplation of a future separation” is invalid. The key issue is the cause of the agreement - its underlying legal and practical purpose.
If the sole purpose is to pre-determine the financial outcome of a divorce (for instance, by fixing or waiving maintenance in advance), it remains void. However, if the agreement has an independent and legitimate cause - for example, compensating one party for investments made during the relationship - and the divorce merely acts as a suspensive condition (the event that triggers the agreement’s effects), then it can be valid.
A landmark 2012 Supreme Court decision illustrates this new reasoning. A future husband who had financed renovations to a property owned by his fiancée agreed that, should the marriage later come to an end, she would transfer to him another property as compensation. The Court upheld the agreement, describing it as an “atypical contract subject to a lawful suspensive condition.” The breakdown of the marriage was not the cause of the agreement but simply the moment when it would take effect.
This marked a shift towards what might be called “controlled autonomy” - a recognition that spouses can regulate certain economic aspects of their relationship, provided they do not interfere with the non-negotiable rights arising from the marital bond.
Agreements at the time of separation or divorce
Italian courts have shown even greater flexibility when assessing agreements reached during a separation or divorce. In these cases, the couple may not only settle the essential issues (such as child custody and maintenance) but also enter into broader arrangements, including property transfers and financial settlements beyond what is strictly required by law.
A key distinction is made between essential content, which must always be reviewed and approved by the court, and additional agreements, which deal with independent financial matters and can take effect without judicial approval, so long as they do not infringe upon mandatory rights or public policy.
A decisive ruling by the Supreme Court’s United Sections (Sezioni Unite, decision no. 21761/2021) confirmed the full validity of property transfers agreed within a joint divorce or consensual separation. The Court held that such agreements, once recorded in the official hearing minutes and approved, have the same legal force as a public deed and constitute a valid title for registration.
In practice, this means that divorcing couples in Italy can now use the separation or divorce proceedings to finalise their entire financial settlement, including the transfer of real estate or other assets.
What are the remaining limits?
Despite this evolution, significant boundaries still exist. Parties cannot waive or fix in advance a future spousal maintenance payment - the court retains exclusive authority to determine this at the time of the divorce. Any agreement concerning children, whether minors or financially dependent adults, must always be reviewed by the court to ensure compliance with the child’s best interests.
Additionally, more broadly, no agreement may breach mandatory legal provisions, public policy, or fundamental personal rights.
Conclusion
Italy has not yet embraced prenuptial agreements to the same extent as common law jurisdictions such as England or the United States, but the trajectory is clear.
The absolute prohibition of the past is giving way to a case-by-case assessment focused on the cause of the agreement and its compatibility with the core principles that govern family law.
In this evolving landscape, financial agreements between spouses - when fair, transparent, and proportionate - can offer a legitimate and forward-thinking way to manage the financial consequences of marital breakdown.
EN-IT
