Alaska Prenuptial Agreement Laws: Voluntariness and Fairness (2026)

Yes, prenuptial agreements can be enforced in Alaska, and the governing rules come from Alaska Supreme Court decisions. Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044 (Alaska 1987), held that prenups made in contemplation of divorce are not void as against public policy, and Andrew B. v. Abbie B., No. S-17740, Op. No. 7552 (Alaska Sept. 3, 2021), held that "a court must decline to enforce a prenuptial agreement if the party seeking to avoid enforcement proves that it was not voluntarily entered into."

Information last verified on 2026-10-08. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers prenuptial agreements in Alaska under Brooks v. Brooks (Alaska 1987) and Andrew B. v. Abbie B. (Alaska 2021), with notes on Compton v. Compton (Alaska 1995), the statute of frauds (AS 09.25.010), the Alaska Community Property Act (AS 34.77), the probate waiver statute (AS 13.12.213) and the default property rule in AS 25.24.160. It does not cover drafting, amendment or revocation of prenups outside AS 34.77, or other states' law. For property division without an agreement, see Alaska divorce laws.

Are prenups enforceable in Alaska?

Yes, subject to the courts' fairness and voluntariness rules. For most prenups, the governing rules come from two Alaska Supreme Court decisions, and neither opinion mentions an Alaska premarital agreement statute. One kind of premarital agreement is governed by statute: a community property agreement signed before marriage under AS 34.77.090 (see below).

Brooks v. Brooks (1987). This was the first Alaska case on prenuptial agreements made in contemplation of divorce. The court held they are not void as against public policy: "Therefore, we join those courts that have recognized that prenuptial agreements legally procured and ostensibly fair in result are valid and can be enforced." Brooks observed that the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act had then been adopted in only three states, and Alaska was not one of them.

Brooks went no further than that. The court surveyed the standards other courts use but expressed no opinion on whether the Brooks agreement was enforceable under them, because the parties had not appealed that issue.

Andrew B. v. Abbie B. (2021). The Alaska Supreme Court set the current voluntariness rule: "We hold that a court must decline to enforce a prenuptial agreement if the party seeking to avoid enforcement proves that it was not voluntarily entered into."

Writing. Under Alaska's statute of frauds, "an agreement made upon consideration of marriage other than mutual promises to marry" is unenforceable unless it or a note or memorandum of it is in writing and signed by the party charged or that party's agent (AS 09.25.010(a)(5)), subject to the exceptions in AS 09.25.020, such as when the party resisting the agreement admits making it in court or one side has fully performed and the other accepted that performance.

The voluntariness test

Andrew B. treats voluntariness as its own test, distinct from duress. The party resisting the agreement carries the burden of proving it was not voluntary. The court identified three things to examine:

"No single factor is dispositive," the court said. In Andrew B., the agreement was presented the night before the wedding. The Supreme Court vacated the ruling and sent the case back for findings on these factors, and for the trial court to address whether enforcement would be unfair and unreasonable.

Independent counsel. Alaska case law states no requirement that each party have a lawyer. Under Andrew B., the ability to consult independent counsel is one voluntariness factor among several. A lawyer licensed in Alaska can draft or review these agreements.

Fairness: procedural and substantive

Andrew B. describes the inquiry this way: "The inquiry into fairness is both procedural -- whether the agreement was freely entered into -- and substantive -- whether the terms of the agreement are unconscionable."

Brooks listed criteria that courts elsewhere "typically" consider, quoting Scherer v. Scherer, without adopting them as Alaska's standard:

"1. Was the agreement obtained through fraud, duress or mistake, or misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material fact? 2. Was the agreement unconscionable when executed? 3. Have the facts and circumstances changed since the agreement was executed, so as to make its enforcement unfair and unreasonable?"

The Alaska Supreme Court has since said, in Compton v. Compton, 902 P.2d 805 (Alaska 1995), that it "will not enforce a prenuptial agreement if the facts and circumstances have changed since the agreement was executed so as to make enforcement unfair and unreasonable," and Andrew B. relied on that statement when it sent the case back.

Andrew B. repeats both timing points, unconscionability when signed and changed circumstances at enforcement, and its remand asked the trial court to address whether enforcing the agreement would be unfair and unreasonable. Voluntariness is judged at the time of signing.

Disclosure. Neither opinion decides whether financial disclosure is required or can be waived. Nondisclosure of a material fact is one of the criteria Brooks surveyed.

Child support and spousal support

Neither Brooks nor Andrew B. addresses whether a prenup can limit child support or spousal support; the Brooks couple had no joint children, and the Andrew B. parties resolved custody without a trial. This page does not state an Alaska rule on either point. For how support is set without an agreement, see Alaska alimony laws.

Premarital community property agreements and probate waivers

Two Alaska statutes reach agreements couples often make before or during marriage.

Community property agreements (AS 34.77). Alaska property is community property "only to the extent provided in a community property agreement or a community property trust" (AS 34.77.030(a)). Under AS 34.77.090, "A community property agreement must be contained in a written document signed by both spouses and classify some or all of the property of the spouses as community property. It is enforceable without consideration," and it must begin with a warning in capital letters that the statute prescribes. Such an agreement can address disposition of property on dissolution or death (AS 34.77.090(d)), and "A community property agreement may not adversely affect the right of a child to support" (AS 34.77.090(c)). Persons intending to marry each other may make a community property agreement "as if married," but it does not take effect until they marry (AS 34.77.090(f)).

A community property agreement signed before marriage is not enforceable if the spouse resisting it proves that it was not signed voluntarily, or that it was unconscionable when made and, before signing, that spouse was not given a fair and reasonable disclosure of the other's property and financial obligations, did not voluntarily sign a written consent waiving further disclosure, and did not have notice of the other's property or obligations (AS 34.77.090(h)). An agreement signed during marriage has a different test (AS 34.77.090(g)), and whether an agreement is unconscionable is decided by the court as a matter of law (AS 34.77.090(i)). A community property agreement can be amended or revoked only as the agreement itself provides or by a later community property agreement (AS 34.77.090(e)).

Waiving rights at death (AS 13.12.213). A surviving spouse's elective share and allowances may be waived before or after marriage "by a written contract, agreement, or waiver signed by the surviving spouse" (AS 13.12.213(a)). Under AS 13.12.213(b), such a waiver is not enforceable if the surviving spouse proves it was not signed voluntarily, or that it was unconscionable when signed and, before signing, the spouse had no fair and reasonable disclosure, did not expressly waive disclosure in writing, and did not have and could not reasonably have had adequate knowledge of the decedent's property and obligations. Unconscionability is decided by the court as a matter of law (AS 13.12.213(c)). Unless the agreement provides otherwise, a waiver of "all rights" (or equivalent language) in the property or estate of a prospective spouse waives the elective share and allowances and gives up inheritance under intestacy or an earlier will (AS 13.12.213(d)).

What this page does not cover

This page does not cover how a prenup outside AS 34.77 is amended or revoked, postnuptial agreements other than community property agreements, or whether any waiting period applies between signing and the wedding. A lawyer licensed in Alaska can explain those points.

Alaska's default property rule

Without an agreement, an Alaska court divides property "acquired only during marriage" in a just manner, and may invade property acquired before the marriage when the equities require it (AS 25.24.160(a)(4)). Community property applies only if the spouses opt in under AS 34.77. See Alaska divorce laws for how property is divided.

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about prenuptial agreements in Alaska under Brooks v. Brooks (Alaska 1987), Andrew B. v. Abbie B. (Alaska 2021), AS 09.25.010, AS 34.77, AS 13.12.213 and AS 25.24.160. It is not legal advice and is not a template for drafting an agreement. The information was verified on 2026-10-08, and the law can change. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in Alaska.

Related

• Prenuptial agreement laws in every state
• Alaska divorce laws
• Alaska alimony laws

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are prenuptial agreements legal in Alaska?

Yes. Brooks v. Brooks (Alaska 1987) held that prenups legally procured and ostensibly fair in result are valid and can be enforced, and are not void as against public policy.

Can a prenup signed the night before the wedding be enforced in Alaska?

It depends on voluntariness. In Andrew B. v. Abbie B. (Alaska 2021), an agreement presented the night before the wedding was sent back for findings on time to review, ability to consult counsel and ability to understand, because a court must decline to enforce a prenup proven not voluntary.

Does each spouse need a lawyer for an Alaska prenup?

Alaska case law states no requirement. Under Andrew B. v. Abbie B. (2021), the ability to consult independent counsel is one voluntariness factor, and no single factor is dispositive.

Did Alaska adopt the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act?

This page does not identify an Alaska enactment of it. Brooks v. Brooks (1987) noted the act had then been adopted in only three states, not including Alaska, and Andrew B. (2021) refers to it only as a source of fairness standards. Separately, AS 34.77.090(f) and (h) govern community property agreements signed before marriage.

Does a prenup have to be in writing in Alaska?

Generally, yes. Alaska's statute of frauds makes an agreement made upon consideration of marriage, other than mutual promises to marry, unenforceable unless it is in writing and signed by the party charged (AS 09.25.010(a)(5)), subject to the narrow exceptions in AS 09.25.020.

Is Alaska a community property state?

Not by default. Property is community property only to the extent a community property agreement or trust provides (AS 34.77.030(a)); otherwise courts divide marital property in a just manner (AS 25.24.160(a)(4)).