How Realistic was The Sex and the City Prenup?

Pop culture famously bends the truth for entertainment’s sake (the massive West Village apartment in the show “Friends” = not realistic). As family law attorneys, we notice the creative license television shows take with legal scenarios in order to build a gripping narrative. The wildly popular show Sex and the City (“SATC”) covered family law issues over the course of several seasons - but how realistic was it? We’re here to separate fact from fiction. 

Spoiler Alert: This post reveals SATC plot details!

As a refresher: hopeless romantic, thirty-something Charlotte York gets engaged to wealthy doctor Trey MacDougal, and family law plotlines ensue.

Scenario: Trey asks Charlotte for a prenup, casually mentioning that everyone in his family has one. Charlotte is insulted, and tells her friends that marriage should be about love. 

Reality: Trey is a successful doctor with family money and sizable assets, so it’s very realistic that “everyone in his family” would have a prenup. It’s less realistic that Charlotte would question it. Just like putting on a seatbelt when getting in a car doesn’t suggest you mean to drive recklessly, having a prenup does not mean you plan to divorce. It does mean that both parties and their assets are protected, and it’s realistic that someone in Charlotte’s situation would understand what’s at stake, and want that mutual protection. 

Scenario: The prenup says that Charlotte will get paid an additional $100,000 in a divorce settlement for every son that she produces (and no additional amount for girls - ouch!). 

Reality: Prenups do not cover child support or child custody - these issues are determined by considerations of what’s in the best interests of the child/children. Moreover, prenups cannot contain provisions that are “unconscionable” or excessively unreasonable. Imagine one party being financially punished for giving birth to daughters and not sons. We don’t think any court would enforce a provision like that, and we certainly would never advise a client of ours to try and defend such a morally depraved provision when trying to enforce a prenup at the time of divorce. 

Scenario: Once Charlotte and Trey decide to divorce, Trey makes an oral promise that she can “have the apartment” they lived in, which was originally owned by his family. 

Reality: Oral promises are not binding, and there was no provision for the apartment in the prenup. Charlotte did not have a legal right to the apartment based on Trey’s word alone. During divorce proceedings, Trey convinced his mother, who was disputing the divorce agreement, to honor his wish to let the apartment pass to Charlotte. Only when they all signed the agreed-upon, written divorce settlement did Charlotte legally gain the right to the apartment. 

Entertainment aside, prenups are an important consideration before any marriage. They can help protect assets people have worked hard to obtain, like retirement savings, real estate, and business interests, and protect family concerns like future inheritance and pre-marital family assets. Many people with prenups have long, happy marriages and don’t end up using the prenup, but they have the peace of mind that they’re protected. 

At Artese Zandri, we represent and counsel clients on family law issues. If you or someone you know is considering a prenup or needs guidance on divorce, reach out to us at consultations@artesezandri.com for a complimentary consultation.