50-state evidence matrix

When a prenup becomes effective

A state-by-state index of catalogued authorities concerning when a premarital agreement takes effect.

47 states have 89 separately catalogued authority records for this topic. 3 states show a visible coverage gap.

50states shown

47with evidence records

89matching authorities

3visible gaps

Manual editorial field guide

The date printed beside a signature is not necessarily the date a prenup began to operate. Review must distinguish drafting, signing, marriage, amendment, and transaction dates, then connect the agreement’s language to the state authority that addresses effectiveness.

445 manually authored words · evidence tables continue below

Build more than one timeline

Create parallel timelines for the relationship, the document, and the property. The relationship line records the planned and actual marriage dates and any later change in marital status. The document line records each draft, signature, acknowledgment, amendment, and revocation. The property line records acquisitions, transfers, account changes, business events, and debts. Questions become clearer when these lines are viewed together.

For example, property may be transferred after signing but before marriage, or an amendment may be signed after a major acquisition. Those facts do not answer the legal question, but they identify which version and which time period a lawyer must analyze. A single date field cannot capture that structure.

Read conditions and definitions closely

Agreements often use phrases such as ‘upon marriage,’ ‘effective as of,’ or ‘in contemplation of marriage.’ Defined terms may set a different operative date for a support clause, property classification, or estate-planning promise. Extract those clauses verbatim and cross-reference them with recitals and amendment language. If the agreement never became effective under its own terms, later conduct may still require analysis, but it should not be silently treated as proof of effectiveness.

Also distinguish effectiveness from enforceability. A statute may identify when an agreement becomes effective while a dispute concerns formation, voluntariness, disclosure, or a particular clause. Collapsing these concepts produces confident but unhelpful answers.

Account for changed plans

Weddings are postponed, canceled, or replaced by a different ceremony; couples separate and reconcile; parties move and sign restatements. The review file should preserve these facts without assuming their legal consequence. Marriage certificates, court records, travel records, and correspondence may be more reliable than memory years later.

The output should identify the candidate operative event, any conflicting agreement language, and every transaction that falls near the boundary. That makes the article useful whether someone is preparing to sign, administering an estate, or reviewing an old agreement after a move.

Questions for the document

What to ask before drawing a conclusion

What event does the agreement say makes it effective, and did that event occur?
Do individual clauses use different dates, conditions, or look-back periods?
Did postponement, cancellation, remarriage, amendment, or relocation alter the factual sequence?
Which assets, income, or debts arose close to a disputed operative date?

Outside evidence

What the agreement cannot prove alone

Marriage certificate, ceremony records, and records of postponement or cancellation
All signed versions, amendments, restatements, revocations, and signature audit trails
Account statements, deeds, closing files, and business records around the relevant dates
Correspondence describing when the parties expected provisions to begin operating

State	Coverage	Citations and scoped summaries	Next step
Alabama (AL) al-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Barnhill v. Barnhill, 386 So. 2d 749 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) Marriage may provide adequate consideration for a contemplated premarital bargain, but Alabama has no codified UPAA applicability date or single statutory transition rule for premarital agreements.	Open AL checklist →
Alaska (AK) ak-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Alaska Stat. § 34.77.090(f); § 34.77.900(7) People intending to marry may execute a community property agreement as if married, but it becomes effective only when they marry; the chapter's determination date is the latest of marriage, the instrument's effective date, or May 23, 1998. Andrew B. v. Abbie B., 494 P.3d 522 (Alaska 2021) For an ordinary premarital agreement, the contemplated marriage supplies consideration; adequacy of the bargain is addressed through fairness rather than by inventing an unstated promise.	Open AK checklist →
Arizona (AZ) az-2026-07-20.3	1 source	A.R.S. § 25-202(B) An Arizona premarital agreement becomes effective on the parties' marriage.	Open AZ checklist →
Arkansas (AR) ar-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-404 The agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open AR checklist →
California (CA) ca-2026-07-18.3	1 source	Cal. Fam. Code § 1613 A premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open CA checklist →
Colorado (CO) co-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	C.R.S. § 14-2-303 The current part applies to agreements signed on or after July 1, 2014 and preserves rights under earlier agreements. C.R.S. § 14-2-307 A premarital agreement takes effect on marriage; a marital agreement takes effect when both parties sign.	Open CO checklist →
Connecticut (CT) ct-2026-07-21.3	1 source	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36e A Connecticut premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage unless the agreement provides otherwise.	Open CT checklist →
Delaware (DE) de-2026-07-21.3	1 source	13 Del. C. § 324 A Delaware premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open DE checklist →
Florida (FL) fl-2026-07-18.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open FL checklist →
Georgia (GA) ga-2026-07-22.3	3 sources	2018 Ga. Laws Act 305 (H.B. 190), §§ 1–5 The 2018 enactment defined antenuptial agreements and added today's writing, signature, two-witness, and notary requirements, effective July 1, 2018. Dove v. Dove, 285 Ga. 647, 680 S.E.2d 839 (2009) Under the former statutory text, Dove held that a then-existing two-witness marriage-contract rule did not govern divorce-focused premarital agreements and treated Scherer as the enforcement test. 2020 Ga. Laws Act 563; O.C.G.A. § 19-3-66 The 2020 amendment revised section 19-3-66's cross-references for enforcement by offspring or heirs and became effective January 1, 2021.	Open GA checklist →
Hawaii (HI) hi-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-4 A Hawaii premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-10 Written premarital agreements entered before July 1, 1987 are valid and enforceable if otherwise valid as contracts.	Open HI checklist →
Idaho (ID) id-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Idaho Code § 32-924 An Idaho premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open ID checklist →
Illinois (IL) il-2026-07-18.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open IL checklist →
Indiana (IN) in-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Ind. Code § 31-11-3-1; P.L. 1-1997, § 3; 1995 Ind. Acts P.L. 189 Indiana's chapter applies to premarital agreements executed on or after July 1, 1995; earlier agreements require historical-law analysis. Ind. Code § 31-11-3-6 An Indiana premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open IN checklist →
Iowa (IA) ia-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Iowa Code § 596.6 (2026) An Iowa premarital agreement becomes effective upon the parties' marriage.	Open IA checklist →
Kansas (KS) ks-2026-07-22.3	1 source	K.S.A. § 23-2405 A Kansas premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open KS checklist →
Kentucky (KY) ky-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.010 Kentucky has not enacted a UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; Gentry recognized divorce-related enforcement in 1990 and overruled inconsistent older public-policy cases, so historical agreements require then-current law.	Open KY checklist →
Louisiana (LA) la-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	La. Civ. Code art. 2329 During the first year after moving to and acquiring a Louisiana domicile, spouses may enter a matrimonial agreement without court approval. Acts 1979, No. 709, § 1; Acts 1980, No. 565, § 1; Acurio v. Acurio, 224 So. 3d 935 (La. 2017) Louisiana's current matrimonial-regime framework derives from the 1979 enactment, with article 2329 amended in 1980; Louisiana has no UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule.	Open LA checklist →
Maine (ME) me-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	19-A M.R.S. § 605 (2025) A Maine premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. 19-A M.R.S. § 606 (2025) For covered older agreements, Maine makes the agreement void 18 months after the parties become parents or guardians of a minor unless they timely sign a written amendment preserving or altering it; section 606 does not apply to agreements executed on or after October 1, 1993.	Open ME checklist →
Maryland (MD) md-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Cannon v. Cannon, 384 Md. 537, 865 A.2d 563 (2005) Absent explicit language to the contrary, an antenuptial agreement ordinarily continues until its conditions are discharged at death or divorce; an unstated temporary purpose does not rewrite the executed duration. Md. Code, Fam. Law § 8-103; Cannon v. Cannon, 384 Md. 537 (2005) Maryland has no enacted UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; section 8-103 separately uses January 1 and April 13, 1976 date boundaries for support modification, while Cannon supplies the modern common-law framework.	Open MD checklist →
Massachusetts (MA) ma-2026-07-23.3	4 sources	DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 762 N.E.2d 797 (2002) Changed circumstances may make enforcement unconscionable if they leave a spouse without sufficient property, maintenance, or employment capacity for self-support. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209, § 25 For a qualifying written property contract, limitations upon property rights take effect when marriage occurs as if contained in a deed. Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666, 389 N.E.2d 385 (1979) Rosenberg made its revised rules prospective for instruments executed after publication, requiring historical-law analysis for earlier agreements. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209, §§ 25–26; DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002) Massachusetts has no enacted UPAA or UPMAA schedule; execution date, marriage date, Rosenberg's line, amendments, and remedy determine governing law.	Open MA checklist →
Michigan (MI) mi-2026-07-23.3	4 sources	MCL 557.28 A qualifying property contract made in contemplation of marriage remains effective after the contemplated marriage occurs. Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005) Later facts may make enforcement unfair and unreasonable, but Reed requires circumstances unforeseeable and not contemplated when the agreement was made. Rinvelt v. Rinvelt, 190 Mich. App. 372, 475 N.W.2d 478 (1991) Rinvelt recognized divorce-related antenuptial agreements; Reed held an older agreement was not void merely because it predated Rinvelt. MCL 557.28; 2025 Mich. S.B. 160 Michigan has no enacted UPAA or UPMAA schedule; Senate Bill 160 passed the Senate in 2025 but remains proposed, so current statutes and cases govern.	Open MI checklist →
Minnesota (MN) mn-2026-07-23.3	4 sources	Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(a), (c) The agreement is made before solemnization, and marriage itself supplies adequate consideration for a conforming agreement. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 6; 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 101, art. 3, § 1 The rewritten section applies to antenuptial and postnuptial agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024; earlier instruments require the prior statute and common law. Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018) Under former section 519.11, statutory safe-harbor treatment was limited and common-law Kinney factors governed marital-property provisions; Kremer found inadequate consideration and duress on its record. In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007) Kinney applied common-law equitable-and-fair execution factors to a 1969 agreement, including fraud, undue influence, duress, consideration, knowledge, rights, and counsel opportunity.	Open MN checklist →
Mississippi (MS) ms-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Sanderson v. Sanderson, 170 So. 3d 430 (Miss. 2014) Substantive unconscionability is measured when the agreement is made, preserving freely negotiated allocation against hindsight based only on an onerous outcome. Sanderson v. Sanderson, 170 So. 3d 430 (Miss. 2014) Mississippi has not enacted a UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date, then-current statutes, and developing common law determine the governing rules.	Open MS checklist →
Missouri (MO) mo-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 432.010, 451.220 Missouri's statutory text addresses contracts made in consideration or contemplation of marriage, so occurrence of the contemplated marriage and the execution chronology matter. Miles v. Werle, 977 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 432.010, 451.220 Missouri has not enacted a UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date and then-current statutes and common law govern historical instruments. Ferry v. Ferry, 586 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979); Wilson v. Wilson, 354 S.W.2d 532 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962) Older Missouri cases remain useful on disclosure, duress, and public policy but must be read through Miles and current statutes.	Open MO checklist →
Montana (MT) mt-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Mont. Code Ann. § 40-2-606 A Montana premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. 1987 Mont. Laws ch. 189, §§ 1–10, 17; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 40-2-601–610 Montana enacted its Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1987, and section 17 makes it applicable to premarital agreements executed on or after October 1, 1987.	Open MT checklist →
Nebraska (NE) ne-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-1005 A Nebraska premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-1001, 42-1009–1011 Nebraska designates and directs uniform construction of its Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, makes its provisions severable, and applies the Act to agreements executed on or after July 16, 1994.	Open NE checklist →
Nevada (NV) nv-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	NRS 123A.060 A Nevada premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. 1989 Nev. Stat. ch. 472 (A.B. 296); NRS 123A.010–.100 Nevada enacted its Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1989; Sogg and Fick explain that an agreement entered before October 1, 1989 may be tested under the Act or Nevada's pre-Act common law.	Open NV checklist →
New Hampshire (NH) nh-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 460:2-a; 2023 N.H. Laws ch. 4, § 1 The 2023 amendment made section 460:2-a gender neutral, effective June 25, 2023, without enacting a new uniform-act enforcement test. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 460:2-a; 1981 N.H. Laws ch. 369, § 1 Section 460:2-a took effect August 22, 1981; older instruments require historical statutory and common-law research. MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 460:2-a New Hampshire has not enacted a UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date, statutory history, and then-current common law govern historical instruments.	Open NH checklist →
New Jersey (NJ) nj-2026-07-22.3	4 sources	N.J. Stat. § 37:2-36 The agreement becomes effective upon marriage or establishment of the civil union. N.J. Stat. § 37:2-41; P.L.1988, c.99 The statutory Act applies to premarital agreements executed on or after November 3, 1988; earlier agreements require New Jersey common-law analysis. P.L.2006, c.103, §§ 26–36 New Jersey's 2006 civil-union enactment amended sections 37:2-31 through 37:2-41 to cover pre-civil-union agreements prospectively from that enactment's effective date. P.L.2013, c.72, §§ 1–3 The 2013 amendments took effect June 27, 2013 and apply to agreements entered on or after that date and to earlier agreements voluntarily revised on or after that date under section 37:2-37.	Open NJ checklist →
New Mexico (NM) nm-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	N.M. Stat. § 40-3A-5 A New Mexico premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. Laws 1995, ch. 61; N.M. Stat. §§ 40-3A-1–10 The New Mexico Act took effect July 1, 1995 and applies to premarital agreements executed on or after that date; earlier agreements require historical common-law analysis.	Open NM checklist →
New York (NY) ny-2026-07-18.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open NY checklist →
North Carolina (NC) nc-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52B-5 A North Carolina premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. S.L. 1987-473, §§ 1, 3 North Carolina's Act became effective July 1, 1987 and applies to premarital agreements executed on or after that date; earlier agreements require historical common-law analysis.	Open NC checklist →
North Dakota (ND) nd-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-06 A North Dakota premarital agreement is effective on marriage; a marital agreement is effective when both parties sign.	Open ND checklist →
Ohio (OH) oh-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	2022 Ohio S.B. 210; Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3103.06, 3103.061 Senate Bill 210's postnuptial and amendment framework took effect March 23, 2023. Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1984); 2022 Ohio S.B. 210 Ohio has not enacted a UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; premarital agreements remain under Gross, while qualifying postmarital instruments require date-specific section 3103.061 analysis.	Open OH checklist →
Oklahoma (OK) ok-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	In re Burgess' Estate, 646 P.2d 623 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982); Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 Oklahoma has not enacted a UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date, current statutory text, and then-applicable common law govern each instrument. Leonard v. Prentice, 1935 OK 427; In re Cobb's Estate, 1956 OK 299 Older Oklahoma cases supply disclosure, knowledge, and fairness principles but must be read through Burgess, Griffin, Hendrick, and current statutes.	Open OK checklist →
Oregon (OR) or-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	ORS 108.715 An Oregon premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. Purcell and Purcell, 99 Or. App. 668, 783 P.2d 1038 (1989) Purcell quotes the 1987 Act's January 1, 1988 effective date and its application only to agreements executed on or after that date, then applies pre-Act law to a 1985 agreement and permits temporary support on that record.	Open OR checklist →
Pennsylvania (PA) pa-2026-07-22.3	1 source	2004 Pa. Laws 175, §§ 3, 5(2), 6; 23 Pa.C.S. § 3106 history Act 175 added section 3106 on November 29, 2004, effective in 60 days, and made it applicable to premarital agreements executed on or after that effective date.	Open PA checklist →
Rhode Island (RI) ri-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-17-4 A premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage. Penhallow v. Penhallow, 649 A.2d 1016 (R.I. 1994) Penhallow states that the Act governs premarital agreements executed on or after July 1, 1987 and holds that unconscionability alone does not defeat an agreement under Rhode Island's conjunctive test.	Open RI checklist →
South Carolina (SC) sc-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 612 S.E.2d 469 (Ct. App. 2005) A premarital agreement is made in contemplation of marriage, and marriage supplies consideration. 2008 S.C. Acts 173; S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-204 The 2008 amendment added written disclosure and applies to waivers executed after February 4, 2008. Stork v. First Nat'l Bank of S.C., 281 S.C. 515, 316 S.E.2d 400 (1984); Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (2003) South Carolina has no UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date and then-current statutes and cases govern.	Open SC checklist →
South Dakota (SD) sd-2026-07-22.3	1 source	S.D. Codified Laws § 25-2-19 A South Dakota premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open SD checklist →
Tennessee (TN) tn-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Perkinson v. Perkinson, 802 S.W.2d 600 (Tenn. 1990); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-501 A premarital agreement is executed before and in contemplation of marriage; the record must confirm that marriage and distinguish later instruments. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-501; Perkinson v. Perkinson, 802 S.W.2d 600 (Tenn. 1990); Randolph v. Randolph, 937 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1996) Tennessee has no UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date and then-current statutes and decisions govern.	Open TN checklist →
Texas (TX) tx-2026-07-18.3	1 source	Tex. Fam. Code § 4.004 A premarital agreement becomes effective on marriage.	Open TX checklist →
Utah (UT) ut-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Utah Code § 81-3-201 Utah defines premarital agreement and broadly defines property to include present, future, legal, equitable, vested, contingent, real, personal, income, and earnings interests. Utah Code § 81-3-204(1) A Utah premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open UT checklist →
Vermont (VT) vt-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353; 2017 Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 195 Vermont has no UPAA or UPMAA schedule; execution date, then-current common law, and the 2018 probate enactment determine the regime.	Open VT checklist →
Virginia (VA) va-2026-07-21.3	1 source	Va. Code § 20-149 A Virginia premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.	Open VA checklist →
Washington (WA) wa-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479 A premarital agreement is made for the contemplated marriage; the record must confirm marriage and distinguish later property transactions. Friedlander v. Friedlander, 80 Wn.2d 293 (1972); Matson; Bernard Washington has no UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date and then-current cases and statutes govern.	Open WA checklist →
West Virginia (WV) wv-2026-07-23.5	2 sources	W. Va. Code §§ 48-1A-101(a), 48-1A-401 A premarital agreement is made in contemplation of marriage and becomes effective upon marriage. W. Va. Code § 48-1A-1001(b); 2023 W. Va. Acts, H.B. 2509 Article 48-1A applies only to premarital agreements signed on or after July 1, 2023.	Open WV checklist →
Wisconsin (WI) wi-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Wis. Stat. § 766.58(5) People intending to marry may execute the agreement as if married, but it becomes effective only upon marriage.	Open WI checklist →
Wyoming (WY) wy-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Lund v. Lund, 849 P.2d 731, 739–40 (Wyo. 1993) A premarital agreement is entered in contemplation and consideration of marriage, and the marriage supplies its consideration. Laird v. Laird, 597 P.2d 463 (Wyo. 1979); Lund; Morrison Wyoming has no enacted UPAA or UPMAA schedule; execution date, the then-current statute of frauds, contract decisions, and any separate probate statute determine the governing regime.	Open WY checklist →

Matrix and list placement describes the records in PrenupsAI's current evidence packages. It does not rank legal strictness, predict enforceability, or mean that an unlisted state has no applicable rule. Open the cited sources to inspect the underlying authority.