Prenuptial Agreement Laws by State (2026): UPAA, UPMAA, Enforceability

There is no federal prenuptial agreement law in the United States. Each state decides, through its own statute or its courts, what a prenup must look like, what it may cover and when a court will refuse to enforce it. Many states use a version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA), two use the newer Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act (UPMAA), and the rest rely on their own statutes or on case law. The table below covers all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with a link to each state guide.

Information last verified on October 9, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This hub summarizes the prenuptial agreement laws of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as set out in each linked state guide, plus the federal retirement-plan and bankruptcy rules that limit what a prenup can do. It does not cover tribal law, the law of US territories, or agreements governed by another country's law. It is general information only: it contains no template, sample clause or drafting checklist. Each state guide carries the full statutes, cases and official sources for that state.

Prenuptial agreement laws by state at a glance

Short cells only: each state guide explains the formal requirements, the enforcement test, support limits and postnuptial rules in full.

Which law governs a prenup: UPAA, UPMAA, a state statute or case law

The answer to "is my prenup enforceable?" starts with which body of law the state uses. The state guides fall into five groups.

Jurisdictions whose guides describe a Uniform Premarital Agreement Act enactment (20 states and D.C.). California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. The 1983 UPAA, written by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), sets a short list of formalities and a fixed test for when a court may refuse enforcement. Several states adapted it: Florida's version sits in Fla. Stat. 61.079, Illinois's in 750 ILCS 10, Indiana's in IC 31-11-3, Iowa's in Iowa Code chapter 596 and West Virginia's in Article 1A of Chapter 48 (in force for agreements signed on or after July 1, 2023).

States with their own premarital agreement acts on the same pattern (6). Arizona (A.R.S. 25-201 to 25-205), Arkansas (the Arkansas Premarital Agreement Act), Connecticut (the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act), Delaware (13 Del. C. 321 to 328), New Jersey (the Uniform Premarital and Pre-Civil Union Agreement Act) and Virginia (the Virginia Premarital Agreement Act). Per the ULC enactment map as of October 8, 2026, 28 jurisdictions have enacted the 1983 act, and all six of these states are on it, but each state's own wording controls, and several of them depart from the uniform text in ways covered below.

States on the newer UPMAA (2). Colorado (C.R.S. 14-2-301 to 14-2-313, for agreements signed on or after July 1, 2014) and North Dakota (N.D.C.C. chapter 14-03.2, for agreements signed after July 31, 2013). The 2012 UPMAA covers agreements made before and during marriage in one act and adds counsel and disclosure protections that the 1983 act lacks. The ULC map also lists a UPMAA bill as introduced in Michigan.

States with their own statutes outside the premarital agreement acts (10). Georgia (an antenuptial agreement article, O.C.G.A. 19-3-60 to 19-3-66), Louisiana (matrimonial agreements under Civil Code articles 2328 to 2333), Massachusetts (G.L. c. 209 s. 25, with the enforcement test from Supreme Judicial Court decisions), Michigan (a single sentence, MCL 557.28, with most rules from Court of Appeals decisions), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 519.11, rewritten in 2024), New Hampshire (RSA 460:2-a), New York (Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3)), Pennsylvania (23 Pa.C.S. 3106, added in 2004), Tennessee (Tenn. Code 36-3-501) and Wisconsin (marital property agreements under Wis. Stat. 766.58).

States where case law sets the test (12). Alabama, Alaska, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Each guide names the leading decisions. Several of these states still have statutes that touch prenups: Alaska's AS 34.77.090 for premarital community property agreements, Missouri's writing rule in RSMo 451.220, South Carolina's presumption of fairness in S.C. Code 20-3-630(A)(4), and Ohio's 2023 postnuptial statute. The guides for Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming also record a statute of frauds that requires an agreement made upon consideration of marriage to be in writing and signed.

Which agreements an act covers

Most premarital agreement acts reach only agreements signed on or after their effective date, so an older prenup may be judged under the earlier law. The state guides record these dates:

Other acts carry enactment dates in their state guides (Connecticut effective October 1, 1995; Kansas July 1, 1988; Hawaii 1987; South Dakota 1989; New Mexico 1995; Pennsylvania 2004). Where a guide gives no applicability rule, ask a lawyer licensed in that state which version governs an older agreement.

What a prenup can and cannot do

The 1983 UPAA, section 3(a), lets the parties contract about property rights, how property is handled on separation, divorce or death, the modification or elimination of spousal support, wills and trusts, life insurance death benefits, the choice of governing law, and other matters that do not violate public policy or a criminal statute. Section 3(b) adds one firm limit: "The right of a child to support may not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement."

The state statutes described in these guides carry the same child-support limit, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Elsewhere the result is similar: Kentucky's Edwardson v. Edwardson (1990) says child support, custody and visitation are not subject to such agreements, and New Hampshire's statute, RSA 460:2-a, bars any term that tries to abrogate the rights of minor children of the marriage.

The 2012 UPMAA, section 10, goes further. A term is unenforceable to the extent it adversely affects a child's right to support, limits a domestic-violence victim's remedies, changes the grounds for a court-decreed separation or divorce, or penalizes a party for starting one. Terms on custodial responsibility do not bind the court, and Colorado, North Dakota and West Virginia say so in their statutes.

Some states add limits of their own:

• Iowa bars a premarital agreement from adversely affecting the right of a spouse, as well as a child, to support (Iowa Code 596.5(2)).
• New Mexico bars terms that adversely affect the right of a child or spouse to support, child custody or visitation, a party's choice of abode, or a party's freedom to pursue career opportunities (NMSA 40-3A-4(B)).
• Utah protects a child's right to support, health and medical expenses, medical insurance and child care coverage (Utah Code 81-3-203(2)).
• Georgia bars using a prenup to leave a spouse unable to pay existing just debts (O.C.G.A. 19-3-60(b)).
• Louisiana bars a matrimonial agreement from renouncing or altering the marital portion or the established order of succession (La. C.C. art. 2330).
• Michigan courts keep the power to invade either spouse's separate estate under MCL 552.23(1) and 552.401, a power a prenup cannot remove (Allard v Allard, on remand, 2017).

On custody, the guides describe courts keeping the final say in several ways: Connecticut makes custody and visitation provisions subject to judicial review and modification (46b-36d), New York ties terms about children to DRL 240, Pennsylvania lets a court modify child support, custody and visitation terms on changed circumstances (23 Pa.C.S. 3105), Massachusetts courts may depart from a custody provision that is not in the child's best interests, and Vermont courts will override a marital agreement to protect the interests of children (Gade v. Gade, 2025).

Formalities: writing, signatures, notarization and witnesses

Under the uniform acts, a prenup must be in writing (a "record" under the UPMAA) and signed by both parties, it is enforceable without consideration, and it takes effect on marriage. The state guides for Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin each report that the statute they cover does not require notarization or witnesses.

Other states require more:

Massachusetts has a recording rule: under G.L. c. 209 s. 26, a section 25 contract not recorded in the registry of deeds before the marriage or within 90 days after is void except between the parties and their heirs and personal representatives, and whether that applies to an agreement used only at divorce is an open question. In Wisconsin, recording with the county register of deeds is optional (766.58(11)).

Many states also require a signed writing through their general statute of frauds. The guides for Alabama (Ala. Code 8-9-2(4)), Alaska (AS 09.25.010(a)(5)), Michigan (MCL 566.132(1)(c)), Mississippi (Miss. Code 15-3-1), New Hampshire (RSA 506:2), Ohio (R.C. 1335.05), Oklahoma (15 O.S. 136(3)), South Carolina (S.C. Code 32-3-10(3)), Vermont (12 V.S.A. 181(3)), Washington (RCW 19.36.010(3)) and Wyoming (W.S. 1-23-105(a)(iii)) each record that rule for agreements made upon consideration of marriage.

When a court will refuse to enforce a prenup

The UPAA test

Section 6 of the 1983 UPAA makes a premarital agreement unenforceable only if the person challenging it proves either:

1. they did not sign it voluntarily, or
2. it was unconscionable when signed and, before signing, they were not given fair and reasonable disclosure of the other party's property and financial obligations, did not voluntarily and expressly waive that disclosure in writing, and did not have, and reasonably could not have had, adequate knowledge of it.

The second route requires all four conditions together. The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law. The state guides for Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Texas describe this two-route test. Texas adds that these are the exclusive remedies and defenses, including common law ones (Tex. Fam. Code 4.006(c)).

How states changed the UPAA test

Many states kept the structure but changed a piece of it, and the change can decide a case:

• Connecticut lists four separate defenses: involuntary signing, unconscionability when signed or when enforcement is sought, no fair and reasonable disclosure, or no reasonable opportunity to consult independent counsel (46b-36g(a)).
• Florida adds fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching as a ground (61.079(7)(a)).
• Indiana makes an agreement unenforceable if it was involuntary or unconscionable when signed (IC 31-11-3-8(a)).
• Iowa lists involuntariness, unconscionability when signed, or a lack of fair disclosure where the person did not have adequate knowledge (596.8(1)).
• Nevada treats involuntariness, unconscionability when signed, and the disclosure failure as separate grounds (NRS 123A.080(1)).
• New Jersey requires proof by clear and convincing evidence and folds independent counsel, or a written waiver of counsel, into the unconscionability test (37:2-38).
• Pennsylvania puts a clear and convincing burden on the challenger, who must prove involuntary execution or all three disclosure conditions; section 3106 contains no unconscionability test.
• Rhode Island joins the two defenses with "and": the challenger must prove both involuntary signing and unconscionability with a lack of disclosure, each by clear and convincing evidence (15-17-6).
• Utah uses "fraudulent when signed" together with the disclosure conditions (81-3-205(1)).
• Virginia requires unconscionability plus no fair disclosure plus no written waiver, and presumes recitals in the agreement to be factually correct unless rebutted (20-151).
• West Virginia adds a ground where either party was under 18 when the marriage occurred (48-1A-601(a)).
• Wisconsin makes an agreement unenforceable if it was unconscionable when made, was not signed voluntarily, or the spouse lacked both fair disclosure and notice of the other's finances (766.58(6)).
• California deems an agreement involuntary unless the court makes findings that include independent counsel or a separate written waiver of counsel, and a seven-day gap before signing (Fam. Code 1615(c)).

The UPMAA test

Under section 9 of the 2012 UPMAA, an agreement is unenforceable if the challenger proves involuntary consent or duress, no access to independent legal representation, no lawyer and no notice of waiver of rights or plain-language explanation, or no adequate financial disclosure. The act prescribes the wording of a conspicuous waiver notice, and "adequate disclosure" means a reasonably accurate description and good-faith estimate of value of property, liabilities and income, a separate signed waiver, or adequate knowledge. Colorado (14-2-309(1)) and North Dakota (14-03.2-08) use this test. North Dakota also lets a court refuse a term that was unconscionable when signed or that would cause substantial hardship because of a material change in circumstances.

Case-law tests

Where the test comes mainly from court decisions, several states share a three-question framework: was the agreement obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts; is it unconscionable; and have circumstances changed so that enforcing it would be unfair and unreasonable. The state guides describe that framework in Georgia (Scherer v. Scherer, 1982), Kentucky (Gentry v. Gentry, 1990), Michigan (Rinvelt v Rinvelt, 1991), New Hampshire (MacFarlane v. Rich, 1989) and South Carolina (Hardee v. Hardee, 2003).

Other case-law tests look different:

• Alabama (Brown v. Brown, 2009): the spouse relying on the agreement must show either adequate consideration and a transaction fair, just and equitable from the other spouse's point of view, or that the other spouse entered it freely and voluntarily with competent independent advice and full knowledge of the estate and its approximate value.
• Alaska (Andrew B. v. Abbie B., 2021): a court must decline to enforce a prenup if the resisting party proves it was not voluntarily entered into, looking at time to review, the ability to consult independent counsel and the ability to understand the terms.
• Maryland (Cannon v. Cannon, 2005): an overreaching test, with a confidential relationship between the parties as a matter of law.
• Massachusetts (DeMatteo, 2002, and Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 1979): valid at signing, then fair and reasonable at the judgment nisi, a narrow second look.
• Mississippi (Sanderson v. Sanderson, 2014): fair in execution, meaning voluntary with financial disclosure, and not substantively unconscionable.
• Missouri (Ferry v. Ferry, 1979; Miles v. Werle, 1998): entered freely, fairly, knowingly, understandingly and in good faith with full disclosure, and not unconscionable. In Potts v. Potts (2010) the Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that a prenup presented the night before the wedding was unconscionable.
• Ohio (Gross v. Gross, 1984; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 1994): entered freely without fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching, with full disclosure or knowledge, and with terms that do not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce.
• Oklahoma (Estate of Burgess, 1982): fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, with a three-question test on fair provision, full disclosure and actual knowledge.
• Tennessee (Tenn. Code 36-3-501, as read in Randolph v. Randolph, 1996): binding if entered freely, knowledgeably and in good faith, without duress or undue influence.
• Vermont (Bassler v. Bassler, 1991): fair and reasonable disclosure, voluntary signing, fair property-division terms and no unconscionability, all judged at formation.
• Washington (In re Marriage of Bernard, 2009): first, is the agreement substantively fair; if not, was there full disclosure and was it freely entered on independent advice of counsel.
• Wyoming (Jones v. Young, 2025): prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are governed by the same rules of construction as other contracts.

Who has to prove what

Under the uniform acts, the person challenging the agreement carries the burden. Several case-law states flip it. In Alabama, Maryland and Washington, the spouse who wants the agreement enforced bears the burden, and in Tennessee that spouse must prove full and fair disclosure or the other spouse's existing knowledge (Randolph). Ohio splits it: the challenger proves fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching, but if the agreement gives the challenger disproportionately less than an equitable division would, the spouse relying on it must show full disclosure or knowledge of assets, and the disadvantaged spouse must have had a meaningful opportunity to consult independent counsel (Fletcher). Minnesota presumes an agreement signed at least seven days before the wedding is enforceable and puts the burden on the party relying on a later one. South Carolina presumes an agreement fair and equitable if it was voluntarily signed, both parties had separate counsel and each made full financial disclosure (20-3-630(A)(4)). New Hampshire presumes an agreement valid unless the challenger proves a fairness standard was not met.

When fairness is measured

Under the UPAA test, unconscionability is measured when the agreement is signed, and Nevada's statute says so expressly. Maryland, Mississippi and Vermont also judge fairness as of signing. Other states take a second look when the agreement is enforced:

• Kentucky reviews a prenup at signing and again when enforcement is sought (Gentry).
• Connecticut allows a challenge for unconscionability when enforcement is sought (46b-36g(a)).
• Massachusetts asks whether the agreement is fair and reasonable at the judgment nisi, a narrow look limited to whether enforcement would leave the contesting spouse without sufficient property, maintenance or employment to support herself (DeMatteo; Austin v. Austin, 2005).
• Minnesota lets a court refuse terms that are unconscionable or that drastically changed, unforeseen circumstances make unfair (519.11 subd. 1c).
• Wisconsin presumes a property agreement equitable at divorce unless its terms are inequitable, and fairness can be judged at divorce if circumstances significantly changed (Button v. Button, 1986).
• Under the three-question framework, changed circumstances count, but Michigan requires that they were not reasonably foreseeable (Woodington v Shokoohi, 2010) and held that large asset growth over a 25-year marriage did not qualify (Reed v Reed, 2005), and New Hampshire limits it to changes so far beyond the parties' contemplation that enforcement would work an unconscionable hardship.

Independent lawyers, disclosure and timing

In a handful of states, counsel or a waiting period is part of the legal test, and the details differ:

• California: at least seven calendar days between first presentation of the final agreement and signing, plus findings on independent counsel or a written waiver of counsel (Fam. Code 1615(c)). A spousal-support term is unenforceable if the spouse it is enforced against had no independent counsel at signing (1612(c)).
• Minnesota: each party must have had a meaningful opportunity to consult independent counsel of their choosing; full and fair disclosure of income and property cannot be waived; and the seven-day presumption applies (519.11 subd. 1b).
• Colorado and North Dakota: lack of access to independent legal representation is a ground against enforcement.
• West Virginia: the agreement itself must acknowledge that both parties had an opportunity to consult separate counsel.
• South Carolina: separate counsel is one condition of the statutory presumption of fairness.
• Connecticut and New Jersey: the opportunity to consult counsel, or counsel or a written waiver, is part of the enforcement test.
• Ohio: a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel matters when the terms are disproportionate (Fletcher).

Elsewhere, counsel is a factor rather than a rule. Maryland declined to create a bright-line counsel rule (Cannon). Mississippi says independent counsel is not necessarily required but a reasonable opportunity to consult one is an important consideration (Sanderson, citing Mabus v. Mabus, 2003). Missouri treats access to counsel as relevant but not required (Miles v. Werle). The state guides for Delaware, Illinois, Nebraska, Texas and Utah report that their acts contain no independent-counsel or waiting-period requirement, and Colorado's guide reports no waiting period.

Disclosure standards also vary. Missouri does not demand absolute, strict disclosure; the question is whether it allowed a meaningful decision (Darr v. Darr, 1997). Wyoming's Borton decision (1964) held that a lack of detailed disclosure will not necessarily void an otherwise properly executed agreement. Mississippi accepts disclosure through financial statements or each party's independent knowledge.

A lawyer licensed in your state can draft or review an agreement and explain how these rules apply to it.

Spousal support and alimony waivers

The UPAA lets a prenup modify or eliminate spousal support, but most UPAA-pattern states keep a backstop: if a waiver would leave a spouse eligible for public assistance at separation or divorce, the court may order support to the extent needed to avoid that. The state guides record this backstop in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon (public or medical assistance), Rhode Island, Utah and West Virginia. The UPMAA has a similar public-assistance backstop in section 9(e).

Other states set different limits:

Courts in several case-law states have upheld waivers. Mississippi enforced an alimony waiver in Mabus and a total spousal-support waiver in Sanderson II (2018). Maryland upheld a mutual alimony waiver in Cannon, and South Carolina held in Hardee that waivers of alimony, support and attorney's fees are not per se unconscionable. Alaska's guide notes that its leading opinions do not decide whether a prenup can limit spousal support.

Changing or revoking a prenup

In most UPAA-pattern states, a prenup can be amended or revoked after the wedding only by a written agreement signed by both spouses. The state guides record that rule for Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida (which also covers abandonment), Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

The exceptions are worth knowing. Iowa allows revocation by a signed written agreement or on the grounds in 596.7(2). New Mexico allows amendment or revocation by a signed and acknowledged written agreement or by a consistent and mutual course of conduct (40-3A-6). Nebraska's version of the act has no section on amending or revoking an agreement after marriage. Wisconsin requires a later marital property agreement (766.58(4)). In Louisiana, modifying or terminating a matrimonial regime during marriage generally requires a joint petition and a court finding (art. 2329). Ohio has allowed spouses to modify or terminate a prenup by contract since March 23, 2023, if the agreement meets R.C. 3103.061.

Postnuptial agreements

A postnuptial agreement is made after the wedding by spouses who intend to stay married. The state guides show more variation here than for prenups:

• Colorado and North Dakota: the UPMAA covers marital agreements, which take effect when both spouses sign.
• Minnesota: a postnuptial agreement is valid only if each spouse had separate counsel at signing, and it is presumed unenforceable if either spouse starts a legal separation or divorce within two years (519.11 subd. 1d).
• Ohio: allowed since March 23, 2023, if the agreement meets R.C. 3103.061, including a writing signed by both spouses.
• Arizona: a 2026 law added A.R.S. 25-202.01 on postnuptial agreements.
• Virginia: allowed under 20-155 on the same terms as prenups, effective when signed.
• New York: DRL 236(B)(3) applies to agreements made before or during the marriage.
• Connecticut: governed by case law, and subject to special scrutiny (Bedrick v. Bedrick, 2011).
• Florida: postnuptial agreements on alimony and marital property are enforceable in divorce (Casto v. Casto, 1987).
• Massachusetts: enforcing a marital agreement is not contrary to public policy (Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, 2010).
• Kansas: an agreement made during marriage that sets property rights on divorce is treated as a separation agreement (In re Marriage of Traster, 2014).
• Wyoming: prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are valid and enforceable (Jones v. Young, 2025).
• Louisiana: spouses may make a matrimonial agreement during marriage, but changing the regime generally needs court approval.
• Pennsylvania: the Divorce Code refers to postnuptial agreements and applies section 3105 enforcement to them.
• Georgia: the Code mentions postnuptial settlements, but the antenuptial article has no separate validity section for them.
• District of Columbia: the property-division statute recognizes valid antenuptial and postnuptial agreements that resolve all property issues (16-910(a)).

For the rest, each state guide covers whatever its law says about agreements made during marriage.

Inheritance waivers and time limits

A prenup often waives a spouse's inheritance rights, and several states set separate rules for that. Alabama requires a signed writing made after fair disclosure (Ala. Code 43-8-72). Missouri requires a writing made after full disclosure and for fair consideration to waive the right of election or intestate rights, before or after marriage (RSMo 474.220, 474.120). Virginia's elective-share waiver statute, 64.2-308.14, adds an adequate-knowledge element to its unconscionability defense. Vermont governs written waivers of a spouse's inheritance rights in 14 V.S.A. 323. Under the Oklahoma decisions described in its guide, homestead rights and the widow's or family allowance cannot be waived by an antenuptial contract, while an intestate share can.

Time limits also vary. New York gives claims and defenses based on a premarital or marital agreement a three-year limitations period, tolled until process is served in the matrimonial action or one party dies (DRL 250). North Carolina tolls limitations periods on claims under a premarital agreement during the marriage, though laches and estoppel remain available (G.S. 52B-9). Several other state guides include a section on time limits for enforcing an agreement.

Property rules a prenup changes

A prenup usually replaces the state's default property rule, so it helps to know what that rule is. The state guides describe community property systems in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana (the community of acquets and gains), Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Washington, and Wisconsin's marital property system. Alaska divides property equitably by default, with community property only if the spouses opt in by agreement or trust. Most other guides describe equitable distribution, including Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Jersey, North Carolina (equal division unless not equitable), New Hampshire (an equal division is presumed equitable), Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Wyoming. Michigan is not a community property state; its courts divide property under MCL 552.19. For how property is divided without an agreement, see the divorce laws by state hub, and for support amounts see alimony laws by state.

Federal rules a prenup cannot override

Two federal rules cut across every state's prenup law.

Retirement plans covered by ERISA. Federal law requires written consent from "the spouse of the participant" to waive a qualified joint and survivor annuity or preretirement survivor annuity, witnessed by a plan representative or a notary (29 U.S.C. 1055(c)(2)). Treasury regulations answer the prenup question directly: "An agreement entered into prior to marriage does not satisfy the applicable consent requirements, even if the agreement is executed within the applicable election period" (26 C.F.R. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-28). A prenup therefore cannot by itself waive a spouse's survivor-annuity rights in such a plan.

Bankruptcy. A "domestic support obligation" is a debt in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support owed to a spouse, former spouse or child, whatever it is called, and established by a separation agreement, divorce decree, property settlement agreement, court order or governmental determination (11 U.S.C. 101(14A)). Domestic support obligations are not dischargeable (11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5)), and other debts to a spouse or former spouse incurred in a divorce or separation are not dischargeable in a chapter 7-type discharge (523(a)(15)). The chapter 13 discharge in 11 U.S.C. 1328(a)(2) lists 523(a)(5) but not (15). Whether a payment promised in a prenup is a support obligation turns on its nature, not its label.

Disclaimer: This hub provides general legal information about prenuptial and postnuptial agreement laws in the 50 US states and the District of Columbia, and related federal rules, as summarized from the linked state guides and verified on October 9, 2026. It is not legal advice, and it is not a template or drafting guide. Whether a specific agreement is enforceable depends on the state's law, the date it was signed and the facts. For your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your state.

Related

• Divorce laws by state
• Alimony laws by state
• Annulment laws by state
• Legal separation laws by state
• Common-law marriage by state
• Child custody laws by state

Last updated: October 9, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are prenuptial agreements enforceable in every state?

Yes, every state and D.C. enforces prenups that meet its requirements, but the tests differ. Uniform-act states such as Texas and Illinois put the burden on the challenger, while case-law states such as Alabama, Maryland and Washington put it on the spouse who wants the agreement enforced.

Does a prenup have to be notarized?

In many states, no. The state guides for Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Texas and Utah, among others, report no notarization or witness requirement, but Georgia requires two witnesses including a notary (O.C.G.A. 19-3-62), and Arkansas, New Mexico and New York require an acknowledgment.

Can a prenup waive alimony?

Usually, within limits. The UPAA lets parties modify or eliminate spousal support, but many states let a court order support if a waiver would leave a spouse on public assistance, California requires independent counsel for a support waiver (Fam. Code 1612(c)), and Iowa bars terms that adversely affect a spouse's right to support (Iowa Code 596.5(2)).

Can a prenup decide child support or custody?

Not in a way that binds the court on child support. The uniform acts say a prenup cannot adversely affect a child's right to support, and Colorado, North Dakota and West Virginia say custodial terms do not bind the court.

How long before the wedding should a prenup be signed?

It depends on the state. California requires at least seven calendar days between first presentation of the final agreement and signing, Minnesota presumes an agreement signed at least seven days before the wedding is enforceable, and a Missouri court upheld a ruling that a prenup presented the night before the wedding was unconscionable (Potts v. Potts, 2010).

Do both people need their own lawyer for a prenup?

Many state laws do not require it, but some make it part of the test. California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Carolina tie enforceability or a presumption of fairness to counsel or access to counsel, while Maryland and Missouri treat counsel as a factor rather than a requirement.

Can you change or cancel a prenup after you are married?

Yes. In most UPAA-pattern states, including California, Texas and Virginia, a prenup can be amended or revoked only by a written agreement signed by both spouses, while New Mexico also allows a consistent and mutual course of conduct (NMSA 40-3A-6).

Are postnuptial agreements valid?

In many states, yes, but the rules can be stricter than for prenups. Minnesota requires separate counsel for each spouse (Minn. Stat. 519.11 subd. 1d), Connecticut subjects them to special scrutiny (Bedrick v. Bedrick, 2011), and Ohio has allowed them only since March 23, 2023 (R.C. 3103.06).

Can a prenup waive my spouse's rights to my 401(k) or pension?

Not on its own for plans covered by ERISA. Federal regulations say an agreement entered into before marriage does not satisfy the spousal-consent requirement for waiving survivor annuities (26 C.F.R. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-28).

What is the difference between the UPAA and the UPMAA?

The 1983 UPAA covers agreements made before marriage and makes them unenforceable only for involuntariness or unconscionability plus a lack of disclosure. The 2012 UPMAA covers agreements made before and during marriage and adds grounds such as no access to independent legal representation; Colorado and North Dakota use it.