581 A.2d 162 (1990)
-Appellant wife challenged the order of the Superior Court, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), affirming the order of the lower court, which dismissed her exceptions to a master's report upholding the validity of a prenuptial agreement and denied her claim for alimony pendente lite against appellee husband.
-She claimed the agreement was unreasonable and that she was not informed of the nature of alimony pendente lite when she relinquished it.
-Appellant asserted that the agreement was not reasonable and that she had not understood the nature of alimony pendente lite when she relinquished it in the agreement.
The court affirmed, ruling the agreement was valid and enforceable and that appellant could not receive alimony pendente lite.
-The court discarded an earlier approach that permitted evaluating the reasonableness of prenuptial agreements and held that such agreements should be interpreted using the same criteria as applied to other contracts.
-Absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress, the spouses were bound to their agreement.
-It rejected appellant's suggestion that the agreement should be voided because she had not consulted with an attorney and ruled that the reasonableness of the agreement was not a proper subject for judicial review.
-Ample evidence supported the findings of full disclosure of assets and the absence of duress.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order of the superior court sustaining the order dismissing her exceptions to a master's report. Applying the same criteria as governed other contracts, the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. Thus, appellant wife, who gave up the right to alimony pendente lite by the terms of the agreement, was barred from receiving it now.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?