New Hampshire Prenuptial Agreement Laws: RSA 460:2-a (2026)

Yes. RSA 460:2-a lets two people in contemplation of marriage enter into a written contract, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that such agreements carry a presumption of validity (MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989)). A spouse can overcome that presumption by proving fraud, duress, mistake or nondisclosure, unconscionability, or changed circumstances so far beyond what the parties contemplated that enforcement would work an unconscionable hardship.

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

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers prenuptial (antenuptial) agreements under New Hampshire law, mainly RSA 460:2-a and MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989), with the property-division factor in RSA 458:16-a. It does not cover later New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions on prenups, postnuptial agreements, tax or estate planning, or other states' law. For divorce, see New Hampshire divorce laws.

Which law governs prenups in New Hampshire

New Hampshire has its own one-section statute, RSA 460:2-a, titled "Antenuptial Agreements." It is not a version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, and the table of contents of RSA chapter 460 shows no other section on antenuptial agreements. It provides:

"Two people in contemplation of marriage may enter into a written interspousal contract and the courts of this state shall give the same effect to such contracts entered in other jurisdictions as would the courts of that other jurisdiction. However, no contract otherwise enforceable under this section may contain any term which attempts to abrogate the statutory or common law rights of minor children of the contemplated marriage."

The section dates from 1981 (1981, 369:1) and was amended in 2023 (2023, 4:1, effective June 25, 2023); the current text refers to "two people." Because the statute is short, most of the enforceability rules come from case law.

Formal requirements

RSA 460:2-a calls for a "written interspousal contract" between two people "in contemplation of marriage." The section itself does not mention signatures, notarization, witnesses, consideration or when the agreement takes effect. Separately, New Hampshire's statute of frauds, RSA 506:2, bars an action on any agreement made in consideration of marriage unless the agreement, or some note or memorandum of it, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or by someone that party authorized. This page does not cover whether other New Hampshire statutes or court decisions add further formal requirements; a lawyer licensed in New Hampshire can advise on that.

Agreements signed in another state

The statute tells New Hampshire courts to "give the same effect to such contracts entered in other jurisdictions as would the courts of that other jurisdiction." For a couple who signed a prenup elsewhere and later moved to New Hampshire, the statute points to how the courts of the place where the agreement was made would treat it.

When a New Hampshire prenup can be set aside

In MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989), the New Hampshire Supreme Court set out three standards of fairness:

"Typically, courts uphold antenuptial agreements if three standards of fairness are met: (1) the agreement was not obtained through fraud, duress or mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of a material fact; (2) the agreement is not unconscionable; (3) the facts and circumstances have not changed since the agreement was executed so as to make the agreement unenforceable."

The court then held that "even though RSA 460:2-a invests antenuptial agreements with a presumption of validity," the presumption "can be rebutted if the party seeking invalidation of the agreement proves that one or more of the above enumerated standards of fairness have not been met."

The burden is on the spouse seeking to invalidate the agreement. In MacFarlane itself, neither spouse raised the first standard. The court upheld as conscionable a clause that would void the agreement if the husband left the wife for another woman, but agreed with the trial court that the husband had not actually done so. On changed circumstances, it held that provisions in an antenuptial agreement may lose their validity only for changed circumstances "so far beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered the contract that its enforcement would work an unconscionable hardship"; it found no such hardship, noting that the husband's health problems had been foreseen in the agreement and that he had received a substantial retirement settlement. It affirmed a divorce decree that distributed the couple's assets and awarded alimony according to the agreement.

MacFarlane was decided in 1989, before the 2023 amendment to RSA 460:2-a. This page does not cover later New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions that may have refined the standard.

Disclosure, lawyers and timing

RSA 460:2-a does not mention financial disclosure schedules, independent counsel or a waiting period before the wedding. MacFarlane treats nondisclosure of a material fact as part of its first fairness standard, so nondisclosure of a material fact is one way to rebut the presumption of validity. A lawyer licensed in New Hampshire can draft or review an agreement for either person.

Alimony waivers

RSA 460:2-a does not include a special rule for agreements that limit or waive alimony. This page does not cover how New Hampshire courts treat alimony waivers beyond the MacFarlane standards, which apply to the agreement as a whole. For how alimony works without an agreement, see New Hampshire alimony laws.

What a New Hampshire prenup cannot do

RSA 460:2-a provides that "no contract otherwise enforceable under this section may contain any term which attempts to abrogate the statutory or common law rights of minor children of the contemplated marriage." The statute protects children's rights generally rather than naming child support or custody. For child support, see New Hampshire child support laws.

Changing a prenup and postnuptial agreements

RSA 460:2-a does not address how a prenup may be amended or revoked, and it does not set a limitations period for enforcing one. This page does not cover those questions.

RSA 460:2-a also speaks only of people "in contemplation of marriage." This page does not cover agreements made by people who are already married; a lawyer licensed in New Hampshire can advise on a postnuptial agreement.

How a prenup interacts with property division

New Hampshire divides property in a divorce by equitable distribution, not community property. Under RSA 458:16-a(II), "the court may order an equitable division of property between the parties. The court shall presume that an equal division is an equitable distribution of property," unless, after weighing the factors the statute lists, it decides an equal division would not be equitable.

A prenup enters that analysis directly. One of the factors listed in RSA 458:16-a(II) is "The value of property that is allocated by a valid prenuptial contract made in good faith by the parties" (paragraph (k)). See New Hampshire divorce laws.

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about prenuptial agreements under New Hampshire law, mainly RSA 460:2-a and MacFarlane v. Rich. It is not legal advice and is not a template for 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 New Hampshire.

Related

• Prenuptial agreement laws in every state
• New Hampshire divorce laws
• New Hampshire alimony laws
• New Hampshire child support laws

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are prenups enforceable in New Hampshire?

Yes. RSA 460:2-a authorizes written antenuptial contracts, and MacFarlane v. Rich (1989) gives them a presumption of validity that a spouse can rebut by proving one of three fairness standards was not met.

Has New Hampshire adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act?

No. New Hampshire's prenup law is its own short statute, RSA 460:2-a, and the enforceability standards come from case law such as MacFarlane v. Rich.

Does a prenup have to be notarized in New Hampshire?

RSA 460:2-a requires a written contract and does not itself mention notarization, witnesses or signatures. Separately, the statute of frauds, RSA 506:2, bars an action on an agreement made in consideration of marriage unless it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. A lawyer licensed in New Hampshire can advise whether other rules apply to a particular agreement.

Can a prenup be challenged because circumstances changed?

Only in narrow cases. Under MacFarlane v. Rich, an agreement may lose its validity for changed circumstances so far beyond what the parties contemplated when they signed that enforcing it would work an unconscionable hardship; the court found none where the husband's health problems had been foreseen in the agreement and he had received a substantial retirement settlement.

Can a New Hampshire prenup limit child support?

RSA 460:2-a bars any term that attempts to abrogate the statutory or common-law rights of minor children of the contemplated marriage.

Is a prenup signed in another state valid in New Hampshire?

RSA 460:2-a directs New Hampshire courts to give an agreement made in another jurisdiction the same effect the courts of that jurisdiction would give it.