Landmark Prenup Cases by State
The controlling appellate decisions in 24 US jurisdictions — what the courts actually held, the facts that drove the outcomes, and the lessons for anyone signing a prenup today.
Each summary links to the primary source. This is general information, not legal advice.
Prenups struck down
Cases where the court refused to enforce the agreement. The most instructive — they show what NOT to do.
-
Matisoff v. Dobi — New York (1997)
New York Court of Appeals struck down a prenup that was properly signed by both parties — solely because it lacked the formal acknowledgment required by New York Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(3).
-
Kremer v. Kremer — Minnesota (2018)
Minnesota Supreme Court struck down a prenup signed three days before a destination wedding under sign-or-no-wedding pressure — the modern Minnesota benchmark for duress.
-
McMullin v. McMullin — Missouri (1996)
Missouri Court of Appeals struck down a prenup where the husband listed assets but assigned no values and gave little time to consult counsel — "full disclosure" requires values, not just descriptions.
-
Fick v. Fick — Nevada (1993)
Nevada Supreme Court refused to enforce a prenup waiving alimony because the husband did not attach financial disclosure AT SIGNING — a belated disclosure cannot cure the defect.
-
Rivera v. Rivera — New Mexico (2010)
New Mexico Court of Appeals held that prenuptial waivers of spousal support are unconscionable as a matter of law — a state-specific carve-out from the UPAA framework.
-
Chapin v. Chapin — Virginia (2017)
Virginia Court of Appeals refused to enforce a prenup where the husband disclosed assets but concealed more than $500,000 in liabilities — "fair and reasonable disclosure" requires disclosing debts, not just assets.
-
Ware v. Ware — West Virginia (2009)
West Virginia Supreme Court struck down a prenup where the husband listed assets generally but omitted specific values — "adequate disclosure" requires the value of property, not just a list.
Prenups upheld
Cases where the court enforced the agreement — often setting the procedural rules drafters now rely on.
-
In re Marriage of Bonds — California (2000)
California Supreme Court upheld a prenup signed the day before the wedding without independent counsel — and the resulting public outcry pushed the Legislature to enact §1615(c), the modern 7-day rule and independent-counsel requirement.
-
Simeone v. Simeone — Pennsylvania (1990)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the older "fairness" standard for prenups and adopted pure contract-law principles, making Pennsylvania one of the most enforcement-friendly jurisdictions in the country.
-
Scherer v. Scherer — Georgia (1982)
Georgia Supreme Court adopted the three-prong test that still controls Georgia prenup enforcement: no fraud or duress at execution, not unconscionable, and changed circumstances haven't made enforcement unfair.
-
DeMatteo v. DeMatteo — Massachusetts (2002)
Massachusetts SJC established the "two-look" test: a prenup must be fair when signed AND not unconscionable when enforced. Among the most demanding substantive-fairness frameworks in the United States.
-
DeLorean v. DeLorean — New Jersey (1986)
New Jersey court enforced a prenup signed hours before the wedding and, crucially, applied New Jersey law instead of the California choice-of-law clause — establishing that choice-of-law clauses don't always survive a move.
-
In re Marriage of Pownall — Arizona (2000)
Arizona Court of Appeals enforced a prenup despite the challenging spouse claiming she lacked knowledge of the other's business assets — holding that Arizona's UPAA allows parties to waive full disclosure if they have adequate knowledge of the other's finances.
-
Burtoff v. Burtoff — District of Columbia (1980)
In DC's case of first impression on prenups, the Court of Appeals upheld an agreement Dr. Burtoff insisted on before his second marriage to protect his estate for children from a prior marriage.
-
Casto v. Casto — Florida (1987)
Florida Supreme Court held that an unequal bargain alone is not grounds to vacate a marital agreement, and laid out the two grounds Florida courts still apply.
-
In re Marriage of Barnes — Illinois (2001)
Illinois Appellate Court enforced a prenup signed shortly before the 1991 wedding where both parties had separate counsel, emphasizing that voluntariness is measured by what the parties foresaw at signing.
-
In re Marriage of Shanks — Iowa (2008)
Iowa Supreme Court's first interpretation of the state's UPAA, holding independent counsel is NOT a prerequisite and financial one-sidedness alone is not unconscionable.
-
Marsh v. Marsh — Texas (1997)
Texas Court of Appeals enforced a prenup signed the morning of the wedding where the husband was urged but declined to obtain counsel — illustrating how strongly pro-enforcement Texas law is.
Mixed outcomes
Cases that severed parts of the agreement, remanded for new findings, or split between property and support.
-
Gross v. Gross — Ohio (1984)
Ohio Supreme Court established the three-part test that still controls Ohio prenup enforcement: voluntary execution, full disclosure or knowledge, and not unconscionable at execution or enforcement.
-
Friedlander v. Friedlander — Washington (1972)
Washington Supreme Court established the substantive-or-procedural-fairness framework: a prenup must be either substantively fair OR procedurally fair (full disclosure + independent counsel + voluntary execution).
-
Newman v. Newman — Colorado (1982)
Colorado Supreme Court established a two-track rule that still controls: property waivers in a prenup are durable, but spousal-support waivers can be reviewed for unconscionability at divorce.
-
Allard v. Allard — Michigan (2017)
Modern Michigan Court of Appeals holding that even a properly drafted prenup cannot strip a Michigan divorce court of its statutory equitable powers to invade separate property.
-
Sailer v. Sailer — North Dakota (2009)
North Dakota Supreme Court remanded a prenup challenge for fact-specific findings on "clear unconscionability" under §14-03.1-07, emphasizing lack of independent counsel as significant but not dispositive.
-
Sanford v. Sanford — South Dakota (2005)
South Dakota Supreme Court held alimony waivers in prenups are void as against public policy, but severed the waiver and enforced the remaining property provisions.
How to read these cases
A prenup case rarely turns on the substance of the agreement itself. It usually turns on procedure — how the agreement was made, who had counsel, what was disclosed, when it was signed. The cases that struck prenups down nearly all involve a procedural defect: inadequate disclosure (McMullin, Chapin), missing acknowledgment (Matisoff), eve-of-wedding pressure (Kremer), or delayed disclosure (Fick).
The cases that upheld prenups all share the opposite profile: documented timeline, separate attorneys, complete contemporaneous disclosure, voluntary execution. The substance of the agreement could be unbalanced, even severely so — it just had to clear the procedural bar.
To check whether your specific situation has any of the procedural risks these cases identified, take the prenup quiz. To see your state's cost ranges and statute, find your state on the cost-by-state page.
Legal terms used in these cases
Key concepts that come up across the case library, defined in plain English: