50-state evidence matrix

Limits and enforcement boundaries

Catalogued authorities addressing public policy, unconscionability, statutory limits, or other enforcement boundaries.

44 states have 96 separately catalogued authority records for this topic. 6 states show a visible coverage gap.

50states shown

44with evidence records

96matching authorities

6visible gaps

Manual editorial field guide

Limitations are where a prenup’s broad language meets mandatory law, public policy, severability, time bars, remedies, and facts that cannot be resolved by contract text alone. The correct method is clause-specific and source-specific, not a blanket label of valid or invalid.

398 manually authored words · evidence tables continue below

Inventory every boundary clause

Extract severability, governing law, forum, limitations periods, remedies, releases, fee shifting, confidentiality, conduct terms, and statements about mandatory rights. Then connect each to the substantive provision it affects. A severability clause may preserve part of an agreement, but its presence does not itself answer whether a problematic term can be separated.

Pay attention to cumulative effects. Several individually understandable terms may interact to create a result no single paragraph reveals. Scenario testing—divorce, death, disability, move, business sale, or child-related dispute—helps expose those interactions.

Distinguish contractual deadlines from legal deadlines

An agreement may set notice periods, claim procedures, valuation dates, or waiver deadlines. Statutes may impose separate limitation or tolling rules. Record both without assuming the private text displaces the public rule. Dates of discovery, separation, filing, death, and challenged transfer may each be relevant.

Because limitations law is especially sensitive to current authority and procedural posture, the page should point to sources and facts rather than calculate a definitive last day to act. Users facing a live deadline need immediate jurisdiction-specific advice.

Use narrow conclusions

A reliable report says that a child-support clause, public-assistance consequence, remedy, or personal-conduct term requires separate review under the linked authority. It does not declare the entire agreement unenforceable. Likewise, a broad savings clause should not be described as curing every prohibited or defective provision.

The editorial goal is to reveal the boundary conditions: which clause, which source, which time, which facts, and which consequence. That precision supports real legal work while keeping the system honest about the line between source retrieval and judgment.

Questions for the document

What to ask before drawing a conclusion

Which clauses invoke severability, governing law, forum, remedies, releases, or time limits?
Does a challenged term affect children, public benefits, third parties, or another mandatory concern?
What event started any contractual or statutory clock, and is that event disputed?
Can the disputed provision be analyzed separately from the rest of the agreement?

Outside evidence

What the agreement cannot prove alone

Complete agreement with every boundary, remedy, waiver, and severability clause extracted
Chronology of separation, discovery, notice, filing, death, transfer, and other triggering events
Current orders, agency records, third-party contracts, and records outside the prenup
Later amendments, course-of-performance evidence, and jurisdiction-specific procedural documents

State	Coverage	Citations and scoped summaries	Next step
Alabama (AL) al-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Ex parte Walters, 580 So. 2d 1352 (Ala. 1991) Walters enforced a clause specifically waiving divorce attorney fees unless enforcement would be inequitable and unjust.	Open AL checklist →
Alaska (AK) ak-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Alaska Stat. tit. 25, including § 25.24.160 Title 25 supplies mandatory dissolution, property, support, custody, and child-related rules that operate alongside any premarital agreement. Kilkenny v. Kilkenny, No. S-18602, Opinion No. 7787 (Alaska Sept. 19, 2025) Kilkenny confirms the court first asks whether execution was voluntary, then whether the agreement was unconscionable when executed or later circumstances make enforcement unfair and unreasonable; it expressly notes Alaska has not adopted UPMAA.	Open AK checklist →
Arizona (AZ) az-2026-07-20.3	1 source	A.R.S. § 25-205 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable defenses including laches and estoppel remain available.	Open AZ checklist →
Arkansas (AR) ar-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-11-408–412; 1987 Ark. Acts 715, §§ 8–12 Arkansas tolls limitations during marriage, preserves laches and estoppel, and applies the Act to agreements executed on or after July 1, 1987.	Open AR checklist →
California (CA) ca-2026-07-18.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open CA checklist →
Colorado (CO) co-2026-07-22.3	1 source	C.R.S. §§ 14-2-311–313; 2013 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 239 Colorado tolls limitations during marriage, preserves laches and estoppel, directs uniform construction, and limits E-SIGN preemption; HB 13-1204 took effect July 1, 2014.	Open CO checklist →
Connecticut (CT) ct-2026-07-21.3	2 sources	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36g(a)(2), (c) Connecticut identifies unconscionability when the agreement was executed or when enforcement is sought, and assigns that issue to the court as a matter of law. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-36i–46b-36j Connecticut tolls an applicable limitations period during marriage while preserving equitable defenses, and the act does not affect the validity of agreements made before October 1, 1995.	Open CT checklist →
Delaware (DE) de-2026-07-21.3	1 source	13 Del. C. § 328 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled while the parties are married, while equitable defenses including laches and estoppel remain available.	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	2 sources	O.C.G.A. § 19-3-62 Georgia directs liberal construction of antenuptial agreements and provides that lack of form or technical expression does not invalidate an otherwise qualifying agreement. O.C.G.A. tit. 19, including §§ 19-3-60–66 and 19-9-3 Title 19 supplies the current statutory context for antenuptial agreements, support, equitable division, custody, and related mandatory domestic-relations rules.	Open GA checklist →
Hawaii (HI) hi-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 572D-8–9, 572D-11; 1987 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 321 Hawaii tolls an applicable limitations period during marriage, preserves laches and estoppel, directs uniform construction, and identifies chapter 572D as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act enacted in 1987.	Open HI checklist →
Idaho (ID) id-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Idaho Code §§ 32-927–929 Idaho tolls an applicable limitation period for a premarital-agreement claim during marriage, preserves equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel, directs uniform construction, and designates sections 32-921 through 32-929 as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.	Open ID checklist →
Illinois (IL) il-2026-07-18.3	1 source	750 ILCS 10/9 An applicable limitations period is tolled during marriage while identified equitable defenses remain available.	Open IL checklist →
Indiana (IN) in-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Ind. Code § 31-11-3-10 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable defenses including laches and estoppel remain available. Fetters v. Fetters, 26 N.E.3d 1016, 1023–24 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied Fetters held that remaining married and delaying a challenge did not alone establish laches or estoppel; the record lacked the required detrimental reliance.	Open IN checklist →
Iowa (IA) ia-2026-07-22.3	4 sources	Iowa Code § 596.8(2) (2026) If a provision or its application is unenforceable, Iowa directs severance without affecting provisions or applications that can operate without it. Iowa Code § 596.9 (2026) In an action to revoke or enforce an Iowa premarital agreement, unconscionability is decided by the court as a matter of law. Iowa Code § 596.11 (2026) A limitations period for relief under an Iowa premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable defenses including laches and estoppel remain available. Iowa Code § 596.12 (2026) Iowa chapter 596 took effect January 1, 1992, applies to agreements executed on or after that date, and does not affect the validity of earlier agreements under Iowa law.	Open IA checklist →
Kansas (KS) ks-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	K.S.A. § 23-2409 Kansas tolls an applicable limitations period for a claim under a premarital agreement during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel. K.S.A. §§ 23-2401, 23-2410–2411 Kansas enacted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1988, directs uniform construction, and applies it to agreements executed on or after its July 1, 1988 effective date.	Open KS checklist →
Kentucky (KY) ky-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Ky. Rev. Stat. ch. 403 Chapter 403 supplies current property, maintenance, child-support, custody, fee, and dissolution rules that operate alongside a premarital agreement. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.180 Section 403.180 governs written separation agreements and makes non-child terms binding unless unconscionable, but expressly excludes custody, support, and visitation terms from that binding rule. Lane v. Lane, 202 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2006) Kentucky reviews agreements case by case and permits modification or invalidation of all or part where application is unconscionable, with deference to supported trial-court findings.	Open KY checklist →
Louisiana (LA) la-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	La. Civ. Code art. 2330 Spouses may not alter the marital portion or established succession order and may not limit, as to third persons, specified powers that one spouse has under the legal regime over community obligations and property. La. Civ. Code art. 7 Parties cannot derogate by juridical act from laws enacted to protect the public interest; a contrary act is absolutely null.	Open LA checklist →
Maine (ME) me-2026-07-22.3	1 source	19-A M.R.S. §§ 601, 610–611 (2025) Maine tolls an applicable limitations period during marriage, preserves laches and estoppel, and directs uniform construction.	Open ME checklist →
Maryland (MD) md-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Cannon v. Cannon, 384 Md. 537, 865 A.2d 563 (2005) When marriage is the consideration for an antenuptial agreement, a confidential relationship exists between the parties as a matter of law at formation. Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552, 471 A.2d 705 (1984) Frey removed Maryland's former public-policy distinction against antenuptial agreements contemplating divorce and applied the Hartz validity factors to such agreements.	Open MD checklist →
Massachusetts (MA) ma-2026-07-23.3	4 sources	Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666, 389 N.E.2d 385 (1979) Prospective spouses stand in a confidential relationship and must deal fairly and understandingly when making a premarital agreement. Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666 (1979); DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002) The agreement must set forth the rights relinquished so the waiver can be evaluated as knowing, fair, and understanding. DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 762 N.E.2d 797 (2002) Potential public-charge consequences and conflict with a child's best interests exemplify limits private premarital terms cannot conclusively control. DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, §§ 17, 38 A premarital agreement cannot eliminate statutory authority to award funds or expenses needed to litigate validity and the domestic-relations proceeding.	Open MA checklist →
Michigan (MI) mi-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005) Reed places proof and persuasion burdens on the challenger, subject to Benker's fact-specific disclosure presumption and other applicable doctrine. Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005) Reed separately allows avoidance when the agreement was unconscionable when executed, focusing on the bargain and formation record then. Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583, 899 N.W.2d 420 (2017) Allard holds parties cannot use an antenuptial agreement to deprive a divorce court of equitable discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401.	Open MI checklist →
Minnesota (MN) mn-2026-07-23.3	4 sources	Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(c) Execution at least seven days before marriage creates a presumption of enforceability and puts the burden on the challenger; a shorter interval removes the presumption and puts the burden on the proponent. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c(a) Courts consider whether all or part is so substantively unfair as to be unconscionable by its terms or because of qualifying changed circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(e) If the agreement unambiguously permits severability, a court may sever an unenforceable provision and enforce the remainder. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1d(d) A postnuptial agreement is presumed unenforceable if either spouse begins separation or dissolution within two years, unless the proponent proves it fair and equitable.	Open MN checklist →
Mississippi (MS) ms-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Miss. Code tit. 93 Title 93 supplies mandatory divorce, property, alimony, custody, and child-support powers that operate alongside any premarital agreement. Sanderson v. Sanderson, 170 So. 3d 430 (Miss. 2014) Trial courts must consider whether premarital terms were substantively unconscionable rather than limiting review to procedure.	Open MS checklist →
Missouri (MO) mo-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Miles v. Werle, 977 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) Even an otherwise knowing agreement must not be unconscionable under Missouri's premarital-enforcement framework. Miles v. Werle, 977 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); Ferry v. Ferry, 586 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979) Prospective spouses must deal candidly and in good faith when allocating marital, support, and estate rights.	Open MO checklist →
Montana (MT) mt-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Mont. Code Ann. § 40-2-610 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel remain available.	Open MT checklist →
Nebraska (NE) ne-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-1008 Nebraska tolls an applicable limitation period for a premarital-agreement claim during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel.	Open NE checklist →
Nevada (NV) nv-2026-07-22.3	1 source	NRS 123A.100 Nevada tolls an applicable limitation period for a premarital-agreement claim during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel.	Open NV checklist →
New Hampshire (NH) nh-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	In the Matter of Nizhnikov, 168 N.H. 525 (2016) Nizhnikov places the burden on the party seeking invalidation to prove one of New Hampshire's recognized grounds. MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989); In the Matter of Nizhnikov, 168 N.H. 525 (2016) Unconscionability is an independent New Hampshire ground for declining enforcement of a premarital agreement or affected term. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 460:2-a New Hampshire courts give an antenuptial contract entered in another jurisdiction the same effect it would receive in that jurisdiction's courts.	Open NH checklist →
New Jersey (NJ) nj-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open NJ checklist →
New Mexico (NM) nm-2026-07-22.3	3 sources	N.M. Stat. § 40-3A-9 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel remain available. N.M. Stat. §§ 40-3A-1, -10; Laws 1995, ch. 61, §§ 1, 10–11 New Mexico designates sections 40-3A-1 through 40-3A-10 as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, directs uniform construction, and made the 1995 enactment severable. N.M. Stat. §§ 40-3A-1–10 (official master database) The New Mexico Compilation Commission is the official legal publisher and routes current NMSA research to the NMOneSource master database.	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	1 source	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52B-9 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel remain available.	Open NC checklist →
North Dakota (ND) nd-2026-07-22.3	6 sources	N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-02 Chapter 14-03.2 applies to premarital and marital agreements signed after July 31, 2013, preserves earlier rights and liabilities, and excludes specified court-approved and dissolution-proceeding agreements. N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-03 North Dakota generally follows a designated jurisdiction's law when it has a significant relationship and is not contrary to North Dakota fundamental public policy; otherwise North Dakota law, including its conflicts rules, applies. N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-04 For an agreement executed under the chapter, North Dakota bars principles of law and equity from supplementing the agreement or altering a material term. N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-08(6)–(7) A North Dakota court may refuse a term that was unconscionable when signed or whose enforcement would cause substantial hardship from a later material change; the court decides those questions as matters of law. N.D.C.C. § 14-03.2-10 A limitations period for relief under a premarital or marital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable defenses including laches and estoppel remain available. 2013 N.D. Sess. Laws chs. 15, 121 (H.B. 1015, H.B. 1128) House Bill 1128 enacted chapter 14-03.2, repealed former chapter 14-03.1, and was contemporaneously affected by House Bill 1015; current codified text must be used rather than an intermediate bill version.	Open ND checklist →
Ohio (OH) oh-2026-07-23.3	4 sources	Supreme Court of Ohio, Prenuptial Agreements Bench Card (reviewed Sept. 2024) The current bench card organizes Gross, Fletcher, Zimmie, counsel, timing, burdens, and support unconscionability for Ohio courts. Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1984) Premarital terms must not promote or encourage divorce or allow a party to profit by divorce. Ohio Rev. Code § 3103.061 A qualifying spousal agreement must be written and signed by both spouses, freely entered without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching, supported by full disclosure or full knowledge and understanding, and not promote divorce or profiteering. Ohio Rev. Code § 2106.22 An action or other attack on a decedent's antenuptial or postnuptial agreement generally must occur within four months after appointment of the estate fiduciary.	Open OH checklist →
Oklahoma (OK) ok-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Okla. Stat. tit. 43, including §§ 1, 109, 112, 118–121, 204 Title 43 supplies Oklahoma's current marriage, divorce, property, support, custody, and antenuptial-contract context. In re Burgess' Estate, 646 P.2d 623 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982); Griffin v. Griffin, 2004 OK CIV APP 58 Fair provision may be evaluated against what the resisting party would receive by operation of law, including whether the contractual provision is grossly disproportionate. In re Rossiter's Estate, 1942 OK 211, 129 P.2d 856 Rossiter held that a premarital waiver cannot eliminate a proper statutory support allowance during estate administration because that protection is public policy.	Open OK checklist →
Oregon (OR) or-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	ORS 108.735 Oregon tolls an applicable limitation period for a premarital-agreement claim during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel. ORS 108.740; 1987 Or. Laws ch. 715 Oregon designates the sections as its Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, directs uniform construction, and preserves valid applications if another provision or application is invalid.	Open OR checklist →
Pennsylvania (PA) pa-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open PA checklist →
Rhode Island (RI) ri-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-17-8 An applicable limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel remain available. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 15-17-9–11; P.L. 1987, ch. 449, § 1 Rhode Island directs uniform construction, identifies the chapter as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, preserves severable applications, and traces every current section to the 1987 enactment.	Open RI checklist →
South Carolina (SC) sc-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 390–92, 585 S.E.2d 501, 505–06 (2003) Hardee reviews procurement defects, unconscionability, and changed circumstances making enforcement unfair and unreasonable. Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 390, 585 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2003) Unconscionability requires absence of meaningful choice together with terms so oppressive no reasonable person would make and no fair person accept them. Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (2003) Hardee asks whether post-execution circumstances make enforcing the challenged provision unfair and unreasonable.	Open SC checklist →
South Dakota (SD) sd-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	S.D. Codified Laws § 25-2-23 South Dakota tolls an applicable limitations period for a claim under a premarital agreement during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25-2-24–25 South Dakota directs uniform construction of sections 25-2-16 through 25-2-25 and designates them as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.	Open SD checklist →
Tennessee (TN) tn-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Cary v. Cary, 937 S.W.2d 777 (Tenn. 1996); O'Daniel v. O'Daniel, No. E2012-01555-COA-R3-CV An alimony waiver is not enforced to the extent enforcement would render the affected spouse a public charge.	Open TN checklist →
Texas (TX) tx-2026-07-18.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open TX checklist →
Utah (UT) ut-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Utah Code § 81-3-207 An applicable limitations period for relief under a Utah premarital agreement is tolled during marriage. Utah Code § 81-3-208 Utah directs uniform construction among enacting states, subject to Utah's enacted text and authority.	Open UT checklist →
Vermont (VT) vt-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16, ¶¶ 12–13 Fairness and unconscionability are distinct; property-division provisions must be substantively fair to each spouse. Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16, ¶¶ 14–20 A court must apply Vermont precedent rather than invalidate an agreement merely because it preserves separate-property treatment resembling the unmarried state.	Open VT checklist →
Virginia (VA) va-2026-07-21.3	4 sources	Va. Code § 20-147 Virginia's Premarital Agreement Act applies to premarital agreements executed on or after July 1, 1986. Va. Code § 20-152 An applicable limitations period for relief under a Virginia premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while equitable defenses including laches and estoppel remain available. Va. Code § 20-154 Virginia preserves qualifying written agreements entered before enactment of the chapter if they are otherwise valid as contracts. Va. Code § 20-155 Virginia generally extends the chapter's conditions to marital agreements, makes them effective immediately, and states specified exceptions for court-order or on-record terms and for reconciliation.	Open VA checklist →
Washington (WA) wa-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895, 204 P.3d 907 (2009); Matson The first prong asks whether the agreement made fair and reasonable provision for the spouse resisting enforcement. Title 26 RCW Title 26 supplies mandatory marriage, community-property, dissolution, support, and child rules.	Open WA checklist →
West Virginia (WV) wv-2026-07-23.5	4 sources	W. Va. Code § 48-1A-601(a)(3), (d)–(e) The family court decides unconscionability as a matter of law under the agreement-level and term-level provisions of section 601. W. Va. Code § 48-1A-601(a)(2) A covered premarital agreement is not enforceable if either party was under eighteen when the marriage occurred. W. Va. Code § 48-1A-701 Terms cannot restrict domestic-violence remedies, modify statutory separation or dissolution grounds, or penalize a party for initiating a proceeding. W. Va. Code § 48-1A-901 A limitations period for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during marriage, while laches, estoppel, and other equitable time defenses remain available.	Open WV checklist →
Wisconsin (WI) wi-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Wis. Stat. § 766.58(6)(a), (8) The resisting spouse may prove the agreement was unconscionable when made; the court decides unconscionability as a matter of law. Button v. Button, 131 Wis. 2d 84, 95–99, 388 N.W.2d 546 (1986) Button requires fair and reasonable financial disclosure, free and voluntary entry, and substantively fair divorce provisions; the challenger bears the persuasion burden. Warren v. Warren, 147 Wis. 2d 704, 709–11, 433 N.W.2d 295 (Ct. App. 1988) Wisconsin's divorce-equity review examines whether circumstances at divorce were beyond the parties' contemplation; ordinary anticipated risks do not alone rescue a spouse from an unwise agreement.	Open WI checklist →
Wyoming (WY) wy-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Lund v. Lund, 849 P.2d 731, 739 (Wyo. 1993); Morrison, 2024 WY 96 Clear, unambiguous text is construed from the words used, reading the agreement as a whole and each provision in light of the others.	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.