Con l’ordinanza n. 20415 del 21 luglio 2025, la Corte di Cassazione ha riconosciuto validità agli accordi tesi a regolare ex ante gli assetti economici nell’eventualità di futura separazione o divorzio. Se in passato tacciate di contrarietà all’ordine pubblico e a norme imperative, ora vengono interpretate come contratti atipici sottoposti a condizione sospensiva lecita in cui la crisi matrimoniale non costituirebbe causa genetica dell’accordo, ma mero evento futuro e incerto che ne consentirebbe l’efficacia giuridica. In tale prospettiva, il riconoscimento di obblighi restitutori e di reciproche concessioni tra i coniugi tenderebbe ad un riequilibrio delle risorse economiche profuse nella vita familiare, interesse meritevoli di tutela ex art. 1322 c.c. in un’evoluzione giurisprudenziale che sin dalla pronuncia Cass. n. 8109/2000 ha progressivamente attenuato la visione rigidamente pubblicistica del matrimonio, in favore di una crescente valorizzazione dell’autonomia negoziale, ferma restando tuttavia la necessità di rispettare i limiti d’indisponibilità di alcuni diritti, in particolare quelli connessi al mantenimento e all’assegno divorzile, nonché la tutela del coniuge debole e dei figli minori. Non una liberalizzazione totale, quindi, quanto piuttosto un riconoscimento graduale e condizionato, che pare aprire alla “privatizzazione” della crisi familiare ma pur sempre soggetta al controllo di legittimità del Giudice.

The lawfulness of financial agreements between spouses in anticipation of marital breakdown: a turning point in Italian Corte di Cassazione jurisprudence

With its Order no. 20415 dated July 21, 2025, the Italian Corte di Cassazione (the Italian Supreme Court in civil and criminal matters) has upheld the enforceability of agreements between spouses defining in advance the financial framework applicable in the event of a future separation or divorce.

Moving away from its traditional position, which deemed these agreements null and void since contrary to of public order and mandatory rules, the Court now classifies them as atypical contracts subject to a lawful condition precedent. In this new view, marital breakdown is not the underlying reason of the agreement, but rather the contingent future event that may trigger its legal effects.

The Court emphasized that restitution obligations and reciprocal concessions between spouses may have the aim to rebalance economic contributions made during the marriage and, as such, pursue interests worthy of protection pursuant to Article 1322 of the Italian Civil Code. This holding is in line with a recent judicial trend toward a broader recognition of private autonomy within domestic relationships, which begun with the same court decision no. 8109/2000 and further developed in its most recent rulings issued in 2024.

At the same time, the Court stated out the limits of its decision. The so-called “prenuptial agreements” that regulate the entire post-marital financial regime in advance are still null and void. This kind of agreements must also comply with and abide to non-assignable and inalienable rights, including alimony, maintenance and the protection of minor children. Accordingly, the ruling does not establish a general liberalization, but a conditional recognition of contractual autonomy subject to judicial review. While the decision reflects a cultural shift toward greater individual autonomy within domestic relations, it also raises concerns regarding the increasing contractualization of marriage and the potential weakening of solidarity-based protections, traditionally associated with the marital bond.