So in the main, couples come to meetings of the mind and/or resolve their differences with agreements hammered out one way or another by the parties themselves.

Contracts between spouses in conjunction with divorce are generally called marital agreements. Such contracts can be further subdivided into three other types: antenuptial (or prenuptial), which are signed before marriage; postnuptial, signed after marriage but before divorce; and insurance and expenses and college.

Courts recognize that these agreements are negotiated under circumstances that make them different than commercial contracts related to goods and services. When the sweet wine of matrimony sours to vinegar, the memory of happier times now lost subjects the parties to all manner of emotions that can work to their disadvantage in protecting their own best party, often the woman, has been known to sign separation agreements in a misbegotten hope of saving the marriage.

In many ways, courts treat these the enforcement of martial agreements the way the law treats the enforcement of contracts. In marital agreements, that means the parties may contract any arrangements that are agreeable to them, but the contract may not be so one sided as to be unfair or unconscionable. These terms have different meanings in law than the affective connotation of them would imply in lay conversation.

Like all contracts, marital agreements must be negotiated by people with a capacity and who make an offer and an acceptance that show a meeting of the mind. Consideration in these estate and under what terms and conditions.

Like all contracts, what the parties agree to must be legal. Marital agreements may not go against public policy. For example, a couple may not expect the courts to enforce a prenuptial agreement providing that the marriage terminates every three years unless renewed by the parties.

Along this line, the "best interests of the child" doctrine cannot in any way be contracted away by the parents.

Grounds for attacking an agreement was signed.

Substantive insufficiency may focus on a question of whether an support in the courts. One Illinois court described an unconscionable bargain as one "which no man in his senses, not under delusion would make ... and which no fair and honest man would accept..."

In addition, agreements may be defended or attacked on grounds of procedural insufficiency based on the amount of time between the signing of an estoppel.

If the parties fail to reach and agreement, their case goes to trial, and the court’s decision and judgment substitutes for an agreement.

Since only a court can grant a divorce, these agreements are not usually called "divorce agreements."

In final form, agreements must be put in writing and often include a parenting plan.

See also Res Judicata; Laches; Estoppel