Michigan
Michigan Prenuptial Agreement Laws: When Prenups Hold Up (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 8, 2026). · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Prenuptial agreements are generally enforceable in Michigan. The governing statute, MCL 557.28, says a property contract made "in contemplation of marriage shall remain in full force after marriage takes place," and the Michigan Court of Appeals in Rinvelt v Rinvelt, 190 Mich App 372 (1991), adopted the three-question fairness test courts use to decide whether one can be set aside.
Information last verified on 2026-10-08. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers prenuptial (premarital) agreements under Michigan law: MCL 557.28 and the Michigan Court of Appeals decisions in Rinvelt (1991), Reed (2005), Woodington (2010) and Allard (2014, and on remand 2017), the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Benker (1982), the statute of frauds in MCL 566.132, and the divorce property provisions in MCL 552.19, 552.23 and 552.401. It does not cover postnuptial agreements in depth, agreements governed by another state's law, or drafting.
Are Prenups Enforceable in Michigan?
Yes, as a general rule. MCL 557.28 provides:
"A contract relating to property made between persons in contemplation of marriage shall remain in full force after marriage takes place." (MCL 557.28)
The details come from case law. In Rinvelt v Rinvelt, 190 Mich App 372 (1991), the Court of Appeals held that prenuptial agreements are generally enforceable if they meet three fairness criteria. Rinvelt is a Court of Appeals decision. It applied to divorce the principles the Michigan Supreme Court set out for a spouse's rights at death in In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich 681 (1982): a valid antenuptial agreement "must be fair, equitable, and reasonable in view of the surrounding facts and circumstances," must be entered into voluntarily with each party understanding the rights waived, and gives rise to "a special duty of disclosure not required in ordinary contract relationships."
Which Law Governs
The Michigan statutes cited here do not adopt a uniform act. The Michigan Compiled Laws sections cited here contain no enactment of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) or the Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act (UPMAA), and this page does not cover the Uniform Law Commission's enactment records.
So the framework is MCL 557.28 plus the Court of Appeals test described below. A lawyer licensed in Michigan can tell you whether anything outside those sources bears on a particular agreement.
Formal Requirements
MCL 557.28 does not itself list formalities. Michigan's statute of frauds, MCL 566.132(1)(c), makes "an agreement, promise, or undertaking made upon consideration of marriage, except mutual promises to marry" void unless it, or a note or memorandum of it, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. MCL 557.21 to 557.29 contain no notarization or witness requirement.
That is not the same as saying none apply, and this page does not cover other general contract rules. Disclosure matters because Benker recognized a special duty of disclosure for antenuptial agreements, and nondisclosure of a material fact is one of the grounds for setting an agreement aside under Rinvelt (see the next section).
When a Michigan Court Can Set a Prenup Aside
Rinvelt adopted a three-question test it quoted from the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Brooks v Brooks, 733 P2d 1044 (1987):
"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?" (Rinvelt v Rinvelt, 190 Mich App 372, 380-381 (1991))
Under the case law, an agreement is voidable if the answer to any of those questions favors the challenger. The later decisions refine each part:
| Issue | What the Court of Appeals said | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Who must prove it | The party challenging the agreement bears the burden | The Court of Appeals line of cases: Rinvelt, Reed and Allard |
| Duress | Duress requires illegal or unlawful coercion | Allard v Allard, 308 Mich App 536 (2014), aff'd in part, vacated in part and rev'd in part on other issues, 499 Mich 932 (2016) |
| Changed circumstances | A change counts only if it was not reasonably foreseeable when the agreement was signed | Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 373 (2010), quoted in Allard |
| Growth in wealth | A 1975 agreement was held valid after a 25-year marriage; significant growth in the parties' assets was not an unforeseeable changed circumstance (the dissent put the assets at more than $5 million) | Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (2005) |
The Michigan Supreme Court's 2016 order in Allard (499 Mich 932) vacated the Court of Appeals' analysis of MCL 552.23(1) and 552.401, reversed its ruling on property acquired by the husband's limited liability companies, and affirmed its conclusion that the agreement did not treat income earned during the marriage as separate property. The order does not mention the duress or changed-circumstances rulings. The Court of Appeals decided the remanded question in 2017 (see the limits section below).
These cases describe how courts have analyzed particular agreements. They do not predict how a court will rule on a different agreement or set of facts.
Spousal Support, Children and Other Limits
Under a 2017 published Court of Appeals decision, a prenup cannot take away two of the court's statutory powers. MCL 552.23(1) lets the court, when the estate awarded to either party is insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and the children of the marriage in either party's care and custody, award part of either party's estate and spousal support. MCL 552.401 lets the court award a party property owned by the other spouse if the party contributed to its acquisition, improvement or accumulation.
In Allard v Allard (On Remand), Court of Appeals No. 308194 (January 31, 2017), a published decision, the Court of Appeals held that "parties cannot, by antenuptial agreement, deprive a trial court of its equitable discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401," and that an agreement attempting to do so is "void as against both statute and the public policy codified by our Legislature." The court decided that question on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court.
On child support, the same opinion quoted Holmes v Holmes, 281 Mich App 575, 590 (2008): "Parents may not bargain away a child's welfare and rights, including the right to receive adequate child support payments. An agreement by the parties regarding support will not suspend the authority of the court to enter a support order." This page does not cover how courts treat custody provisions in a prenup; a lawyer licensed in Michigan can explain that.
For how Michigan courts set spousal support when there is no enforceable agreement, see Michigan alimony laws.
Changing or Revoking a Prenup, and Postnuptial Agreements
This page does not cover a Michigan statute on amending or revoking a premarital agreement, or on the time limit for challenging one, and it does not cover postnuptial agreements. MCL 557.28 speaks only to contracts made "in contemplation of marriage." For an agreement signed after the wedding, or a change to an existing prenup, ask a Michigan family lawyer.
Property Division Without a Prenup
Michigan is not a community property state. In a divorce or separate maintenance case, the court may restore to either party "the whole, or such parts as it shall deem just and reasonable, of the real and personal estate that shall have come to either party by reason of the marriage" (MCL 552.19), and may award further property and spousal support under MCL 552.23. As described above, a prenup cannot remove the court's discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and 552.401. For the full divorce process, see Michigan divorce laws.
Getting a Prenup Drafted and Reviewed
A prenuptial agreement is a contract that a lawyer licensed in Michigan can draft or review. This page describes the law that applies to these agreements; it is not a template, and it does not suggest terms. Because the Rinvelt test asks whether there was fraud, duress, mistake, or nondisclosure of a material fact, the circumstances in which the agreement was signed are part of what a court examines.
Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about prenuptial agreements under Michigan law, chiefly MCL 557.28 and the Michigan Court of Appeals decisions cited, verified on 2026-10-08. It is not legal advice. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in Michigan.
Related
Last updated: 2026-10-08.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will a prenup hold up in court in Michigan?
Michigan courts generally enforce prenups under MCL 557.28 and Rinvelt v Rinvelt (1991), unless the challenger shows fraud, duress, mistake or nondisclosure of a material fact, unconscionability when signed, or unforeseeable changed circumstances that make enforcement unfair. Even a valid prenup cannot remove the court's discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and 552.401 (Allard v Allard, on remand, 2017).
Does Michigan follow the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act?
The Michigan statutes cited here contain no UPAA enactment. Michigan relies on MCL 557.28 and Court of Appeals case law.
Does a prenup in Michigan have to be notarized?
MCL 557.28 does not list notarization or other formalities, and the sections cited here, MCL 557.21 to 557.29, do not list a notarization or witness requirement. Michigan's statute of frauds, MCL 566.132(1)(c), does require an agreement made upon consideration of marriage to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.
Can a prenup be thrown out because one spouse got much richer?
Growth in wealth did not defeat the agreement in Reed v Reed (2005), where the Court of Appeals held a 1975 agreement valid after a 25-year marriage because significant asset growth was foreseeable, and changed circumstances count only if not reasonably foreseeable.
What counts as duress for a Michigan prenup?
In Allard v Allard (2014), the Court of Appeals held that duress requires illegal or unlawful coercion.
Is Michigan a community property state?
No. Michigan courts divide property in a divorce under MCL 552.19 and 552.23, which let the court restore or award property as it deems just and reasonable.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 557.28Contract relating to property made in contemplation of marriageIn force
A contract relating to property made between persons in contemplation of marriage shall remain in full force after marriage takes place.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 552.19Restoration of real and personal estate to partiesIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Upon the annulment of a marriage, a divorce from the bonds of matrimony or a judgment of separate maintenance, the court may make a further judgment for restoring to either party the whole, or such parts as it shall deem just and reasonable, of the real and personal estate that shall have come to either party by reason of the marriage, or for awarding to either party the value thereof, to be paid by either party in money.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Also relied on in: Michigan Annulment Laws: Grounds, Deadlines and How to File (2026), Legal Separation in Michigan: Separate Maintenance Explained (2026)
§ 552.23Judgment of divorce or separate maintenance; further award of real and personal estate; transmittal of payments to department of human services; service fee; failure or refusal to pay service fee; contempt; "state disbursement unit" or "SDU" definedIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) Upon entry of a judgment of divorce or separate maintenance, if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage who are committed to the care and custody of either party, the court may also award to either party the part of the real and personal estate of either party and spousal support out of the real and personal estate, to be paid to either party in gross or otherwise as the court considers just and reasonable, after considering the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case. (2) Upon certification by a county department of human services that a complainant or petitioner in a proceeding under this chapter is receiving public assistance either personally or for children of the marriage, payments received by the friend of the court or the state disbursement unit for the support and education of the children or maintenance of the party shall be transmitted to the department of human services.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 160 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Loutts v. Loutts (Michigan Court of Appeals 2012, 298 Mich. App. 21)“…Id. at 86 . This Court disagreed and determined that MCL 552.23 4 and MCL 552.28 require courts to con…”
- Myland v. Myland (Michigan Court of Appeals 2010, 290 Mich. App. 691)“…quitable under the circumstances of this case. We hold that MCL 552.23 prohibits the use of rigid and arbitrar…”
- Reeves v. Reeves (Michigan Court of Appeals 1998, 226 Mich. App. 490)“…t for the suitable support and maintenance of either party. MCL 552.23; MSA 25.103. In light of the trial cour…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Spousal Support (Alimony) Laws: How It Works (2026), Common Law Marriage in Michigan: Is It Recognized? (2026)
§ 700.2202Election of surviving spouseIn force
(1) The surviving widow of a decedent who was domiciled in this state and who dies intestate may file with the court an election in writing that she elects to take 1 of the following: (a) Her intestate share under section 2102. (b) If the decedent died before the effective date of the amendatory act that added section 30 to 1846 RS 66, her dower right under sections 1 to 29 of 1846 RS 66, MCL 558.1 to 558.29. (2) The surviving spouse of a decedent who was domiciled in this state and who dies testate may file with the court an election in writing that the spouse elects 1 of the following: (a) That the spouse will abide by the terms of the will. (b) That the spouse will take 1/2 of the sum or share that would have passed to the spouse had the testator died intestate, reduced by 1/2 of the value of all property derived by the spouse from the decedent by any means other than testate or intestate succession upon the decedent's death. (c) If a widow, and if the decedent died before the effective date of the amendatory act that added section 30 to 1846 RS 66, that she will take her dower right under sections 1 to 29 of 1846 RS 66, MCL 558.1 to 558.29.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 557.28: Contract relating to property made in contemplation of marriage(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Rinvelt v Rinvelt, 190 Mich App 372 (1991) (Caselaw Access Project)(static.case.law)
- Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131 (2005) (Caselaw Access Project)(static.case.law)
- Allard v Allard, 308 Mich App 536 (2014), quoting Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352 (2010) (Caselaw Access Project)(static.case.law)
- MCL 552.19: Restoration of property on annulment, divorce or separate maintenance(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 552.23: Property and spousal support on judgment of divorce or separate maintenance(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Allard v Allard (On Remand), Michigan Court of Appeals No. 308194 (Jan. 31, 2017) (published opinion)(www.courts.michigan.gov).gov
- Allard v Allard, 499 Mich 932 (2016) (Michigan Supreme Court order) (Caselaw Access Project)(static.case.law)
- In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich 681 (1982) (Caselaw Access Project)(static.case.law)
- MCL 566.132: Statute of frauds; agreements made upon consideration of marriage(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 552.401: Award of spouse's property to a party who contributed to it(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov