50-state evidence matrix

Spousal-support provisions in prenups

Catalogued authorities concerning premarital waivers, limits, or other treatment of spousal support.

37 states have 55 separately catalogued authority records for this topic. 13 states show a visible coverage gap.

50states shown

37with evidence records

55matching authorities

13visible gaps

Manual editorial field guide

A spousal-support provision should be read as an economic design with conditions, exceptions, and a future enforcement setting—not reduced to the word ‘waiver.’ The language, signing process, and later circumstances may each raise different source-backed questions.

416 manually authored words · evidence tables continue below

Model the provision exactly

Extract who pays, who receives, the amount or formula, duration, start and stop events, inflation treatment, tax assumptions, security, and exceptions. A cap, floor, lump sum, property substitute, and complete waiver have different economic effects. So do sunset clauses and provisions triggered by marriage length, children, disability, or fault allegations.

Then test the drafting mechanics. Defined income may exclude business distributions or equity compensation. A payment may be described as property even though it functions as support. A release may conflict with a later paragraph. Modeling the actual provision prevents a headline from obscuring the deal.

Keep execution-time and enforcement-time facts distinct

Some source records focus on the process at signing: counsel, disclosure, voluntariness, and the bargain as then understood. Others identify limits that may be evaluated when enforcement is sought, including hardship or public-assistance concerns. Build two factual snapshots instead of blending the past and present.

This does not mean every change in fortune defeats a waiver. It means current circumstances should not be ignored where the cited authority makes them relevant. The article’s job is to route the facts to the right question, not forecast a court result.

Look for economic substitutes

A support waiver may sit beside a housing right, property transfer, insurance promise, employment provision, or death benefit. Review the package as a whole and ask whether those substitutes were actually funded or implemented. A promised benefit that never materialized can change the practical picture even before its legal effect is assessed.

Create scenarios for short marriage, long marriage, disability, career interruption, relocation, and death. The purpose is not to predict every future. It is to expose hidden assumptions and identify terms that need clearer drafting or current legal review.

Questions for the document

What to ask before drawing a conclusion

Is the provision a waiver, cap, formula, lump sum, property substitute, or conditional benefit?
Which definitions and triggering events control the amount and duration?
What counsel, disclosure, and negotiation evidence relates specifically to the support term?
Do current circumstances activate any source-catalogued hardship or public-assistance safeguard?

Outside evidence

What the agreement cannot prove alone

Exact support clauses, definitions, schedules, side letters, and negotiation drafts
Counsel engagement and waiver records tied to the version that was signed
Historical and current income, budgets, health evidence, caregiving history, and employment records
Proof that promised property, housing, insurance, or other substitute benefits were implemented

State	Coverage	Citations and scoped summaries	Next step
Alabama (AL) al-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Barnhill v. Barnhill, 386 So. 2d 749 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) Barnhill's first alternative requires adequate consideration and an entire transaction that was fair, just, and equitable from the resisting spouse's point of view; Hollar confirms the framework remains current. Ex parte Walters, 580 So. 2d 1352 (Ala. 1991) Walters recognizes enforcement of an alimony waiver in a valid premarital agreement, subject to Alabama's governing enforceability rules.	Open AL checklist →
Alaska (AK) ak-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Kilkenny v. Kilkenny, No. S-18602, Opinion No. 7787 (Alaska Sept. 19, 2025) A court may selectively strike terms made unfair or unreasonable by material changed circumstances without voiding the entire agreement, but it may not add new promises and must explain term-by-term choices sufficiently for appellate review. Kilkenny v. Kilkenny, No. S-18602, Opinion No. 7787 (Alaska Sept. 19, 2025) Kilkenny holds that domestic violence and coercive financial control during marriage may be material changed circumstances making particular attorney-fee, support, or property-remedy restrictions unfair or unreasonable.	Open AK checklist →
Arizona (AZ) az-2026-07-20.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open AZ checklist →
Arkansas (AR) ar-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open AR checklist →
California (CA) ca-2026-07-18.3	1 source	Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(c) California places counsel and unconscionability limits on premarital spousal-support provisions.	Open CA checklist →
Colorado (CO) co-2026-07-22.3	1 source	C.R.S. § 14-2-309(5), (7) An otherwise enforceable agreement is unenforceable to the extent a maintenance or attorney-fee term is unconscionable at enforcement.	Open CO checklist →
Connecticut (CT) ct-2026-07-21.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open CT checklist →
Delaware (DE) de-2026-07-21.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	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	Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635, 292 S.E.2d 662 (1982) Scherer's second prong requires the proponent to show that the agreement was not unconscionable, including when the agreement limits spousal support or property remedies. Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635, 292 S.E.2d 662 (1982) Scherer's third prong asks whether relevant later facts and circumstances, including unforeseen changes, make enforcement unfair and unreasonable. O.C.G.A. § 19-3-60; Arlotta v. Arlotta, A24A0961 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024) Georgia's statutory definition expressly includes spousal-support and equitable-division issues, and Arlotta applies Scherer to terms limiting those default-law remedies.	Open GA checklist →
Hawaii (HI) hi-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-6(a)(2), (c) The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law; under L.R.O., the statutory branch requires both substantive and procedural unconscionability together with the disclosure conditions.	Open HI checklist →
Idaho (ID) id-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open ID checklist →
Illinois (IL) il-2026-07-18.3	1 source	750 ILCS 10/7(b) A court may require support to avoid undue hardship from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable when a support provision was executed.	Open IL checklist →
Indiana (IN) in-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	Ind. Code § 31-11-3-8(b) If a maintenance modification or elimination causes extreme hardship under circumstances not reasonably foreseeable when the agreement was executed, a court may require maintenance only to the extent necessary to avoid that hardship. Fetters v. Fetters, 26 N.E.3d 1016, 1020–22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied Fetters applies execution-time unconscionability and considers bargaining-power disparity, one-sidedness or unfair surprise, economic circumstances, execution conditions, knowledge, and independent counsel.	Open IN checklist →
Iowa (IA) ia-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open IA checklist →
Kansas (KS) ks-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open KS checklist →
Kentucky (KY) ky-2026-07-23.3	5 sources	Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.200 Section 403.200 supplies default eligibility, amount, and duration factors for maintenance; a waiver remains subject to the agreement's text and Lane's case-specific unconscionability review. Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928, 936 (Ky. 1990) Gentry requires review for unconscionability, including whether the agreement was manifestly unfair when executed. Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928, 936 (Ky. 1990) A court must examine the agreement when enforcement is sought and may refuse enforcement if later facts and circumstances make it unconscionable, unfair, or unreasonable. Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990) Gentry separately affirmed a statutory maintenance award and emphasized that the premarital agreement before it did not waive maintenance. Lane v. Lane, 202 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2006) A trial court may modify or invalidate all or part of a premarital agreement when enforcement is unconscionable; Lane affirmed relief from a total maintenance waiver based on the first marriage, children, homemaking, career effects, growing disparity, and the agreement's combined restrictions.	Open KY checklist →
Louisiana (LA) la-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	McAlpine v. McAlpine, 94-C-1594 (La. Sept. 5, 1996), 679 So. 2d 85 McAlpine holds that a premarital waiver of permanent post-divorce support is not automatically void as against public policy and may be enforced subject to ordinary contract-rescission grounds. La. Civ. Code arts. 111–113 Current law separately authorizes interim and final periodic support and applies distinct needs, ability-to-pay, fault, duration, and domestic-abuse rules.	Open LA checklist →
Maine (ME) me-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open ME checklist →
Maryland (MD) md-2026-07-23.3	3 sources	Cannon v. Cannon, 384 Md. 537, 865 A.2d 563 (2005) If allowance and waiver terms are unfairly disproportionate at execution, the enforcing party must prove that overreaching did not occur using factors including disclosure, counsel opportunity, and knowing voluntary relinquishment. Stewart v. Stewart, 214 Md. App. 458, 76 A.3d 1221 (2013) Stewart describes unconscionability as requiring extreme unfairness reflected in lack of meaningful choice and terms unreasonably favoring the other party, while preserving Cannon's specific overreaching framework. Md. Code, Fam. Law § 8-103(b)–(c) For agreements within the statute's date ranges, courts may modify spousal-support provisions unless the instrument contains the specified nonmodification language or an express waiver.	Open MD checklist →
Massachusetts (MA) ma-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Rudnick v. Rudnick, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 285 N.E.3d 857 (2023) Rudnick found enforcement unconscionable where breached title promises and the agreement left an elderly spouse without marital property, alimony, or sufficient resources. Austin v. Austin, 445 Mass. 601, 839 N.E.2d 837 (2005) Austin enforced a negotiated waiver after finding execution validity and enforcement-time conscionability because meaningful assets and resources remained.	Open MA checklist →
Michigan (MI) mi-2026-07-23.3	1 source	MCL 552.23(1) If estates and effects are insufficient for suitable support, a divorce court may award part of the other estate and spousal support as just and reasonable.	Open MI checklist →
Minnesota (MN) mn-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c(a) Drastically changed circumstances not originally foreseen may make enforcement inconsistent with the parties' reasonable expectations at execution. Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c(b) An agreement need not approximate statutory property division or maintenance, and deviation from default standards alone does not establish unconscionability.	Open MN checklist →
Mississippi (MS) ms-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	Sanderson v. Sanderson, 245 So. 3d 421 (Miss. 2018) On remand, Sanderson upheld mutually worded property, alimony, allowance, inheritance, and benefit waivers as not harsh, oppressive, or one-sided on that record. Sanderson v. Sanderson, 245 So. 3d 421 (Miss. 2018) Mississippi may enforce an alimony waiver after fair execution and substantive review, as Sanderson did on its mutual and fact-specific record.	Open MS checklist →
Missouri (MO) mo-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Gould v. Rafaeli, 822 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) A premarital agreement may address maintenance, but enforceability depends on the agreement text, Miles safeguards, and current statutory limits.	Open MO checklist →
Montana (MT) mt-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Mont. Code Ann. § 40-2-608(1)(b), (3) The court decides execution-time unconscionability as a matter of law, while the statutory public-assistance safeguard remains separately available for qualifying support consequences.	Open MT checklist →
Nebraska (NE) ne-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Auxier v. Auxier, 32 Neb. App. 230, 995 N.W.2d 446 (2023) Auxier held that statutory unconscionability is assessed when the agreement is executed, reversed reliance on later disability and financial circumstances to invalidate an alimony waiver, and found the public-assistance exception unmet on the evidence.	Open NE checklist →
Nevada (NV) nv-2026-07-22.3	1 source	NRS 123A.080(1)(b), (3) Nevada makes unconscionability when the agreement was executed a standalone unenforceability ground, and the court decides the issue as a matter of law.	Open NV checklist →
New Hampshire (NH) nh-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989); In the Matter of Nizhnikov, 168 N.H. 525 (2016) Facts and circumstances may change so substantially after execution that enforcement would create the unconscionable hardship contemplated by New Hampshire precedent. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 458:19, 458:19-a Current alimony statutes supply mandatory remedy and modification context for any premarital support clause.	Open NH checklist →
New Jersey (NJ) nj-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Steele v. McDonnell, 467 N.J. Super. 414, 440–42, 255 A.3d 229 (App. Div. 2021) Steele explains that the 2013 Act would not govern a 1992 agreement and contrasts the 1988 version's separate enforcement-time unconscionability inquiry with the 2013 execution-time framework.	Open NJ checklist →
New Mexico (NM) nm-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	N.M. Stat. § 40-3A-4(B) A New Mexico premarital agreement may not adversely affect a spouse's right to support. Rivera v. Rivera, 2010-NMCA-106, 149 N.M. 66, 243 P.3d 1148, cert. denied, 2010-NMCERT-010 Rivera held the agreement's support-waiver provisions violated section 40-3A-4(B) and were contrary to public policy; because the agreement lacked a severability clause and no severance argument was preserved, the court treated the whole bargain as unconscionable on that record.	Open NM checklist →
New York (NY) ny-2026-07-18.3	1 source	N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(3)(3) Maintenance terms are subject to statutory cross-references and fairness/reasonableness and unconscionability language.	Open NY checklist →
North Carolina (NC) nc-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52B-7(a)(2), (c) The court decides execution-time unconscionability as a matter of law, while the public-assistance support safeguard remains separately available.	Open NC checklist →
North Dakota (ND) nd-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open ND checklist →
Ohio (OH) oh-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1984) A divorce-related support provision valid at execution may be reviewed at divorce for unconscionability and reasonableness using the relevant statutory support factors.	Open OH checklist →
Oklahoma (OK) ok-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Griffin v. Griffin, 2004 OK CIV APP 58; Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 121 Oklahoma agreements may address support and divorce payments, subject to Burgess, fraud, contract construction, and current statutory limits.	Open OK checklist →
Oregon (OR) or-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Annotations to ORS 108.710 and 108.725 Oregon's official annotations identify Bridge for the necessary-support limit on a spousal-support waiver, Proctor for the limited effect of a construction choice-of-law clause, and Rudder for the statutory meaning of voluntary execution.	Open OR checklist →
Pennsylvania (PA) pa-2026-07-22.3	2 sources	23 Pa.C.S. § 3105(c) Unless the agreement specifically provides otherwise, provisions addressing existing property rights, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, or expenses are not subject to court modification. Musko v. Musko, 548 Pa. 378, 697 A.2d 255 (1997) Musko's majority enforced reciprocal language barring money, property, alimony, or support as unambiguously reaching alimony pendente lite even though the clause did not use that exact statutory term.	Open PA checklist →
Rhode Island (RI) ri-2026-07-22.3	1 source	R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-17-6(d) The court decides execution-time unconscionability as a matter of law, while the statutory support safeguard remains separately available.	Open RI checklist →
South Carolina (SC) sc-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (2003) Premarital waivers of alimony, support, and attorney fees are not per se unconscionable or automatically against public policy.	Open SC checklist →
South Dakota (SD) sd-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open SD checklist →
Tennessee (TN) tn-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Cary v. Cary, 937 S.W.2d 777, 782 (Tenn. 1996) Cary generally enforces alimony waivers entered freely, knowledgeably, in good faith, and without duress, undue influence, or overreaching.	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	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open UT checklist →
Vermont (VT) vt-2026-07-23.3	1 source	15 V.S.A. § 752 Section 752 supplies current maintenance eligibility and amount factors against which a waiver's effect must be assessed.	Open VT checklist →
Virginia (VA) va-2026-07-21.3	1 source	Va. Code § 20-150(4) Virginia expressly includes spousal support among the subjects parties may address in a premarital agreement.	Open VA checklist →
Washington (WA) wa-2026-07-23.3	1 source	RCW 26.09.090 Section .090 supplies current maintenance factors relevant to the effect and substantive fairness of a waiver.	Open WA checklist →
West Virginia (WV) wv-2026-07-23.5	1 source	W. Va. Code § 48-1A-601(c)–(e) The court may order support needed to avoid public-assistance eligibility and may refuse a term causing substantial hardship from a material post-signing change.	Open WV checklist →
Wisconsin (WI) wi-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Wis. Stat. § 766.58(3)(d), (9) Support may be modified or eliminated, but during marriage a spouse may not be left without necessary and adequate support, and a court may order support needed to avoid public-assistance eligibility at dissolution or death.	Open WI checklist →
Wyoming (WY) wy-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114 Section 20-2-114 authorizes reasonable alimony having regard to the other spouse's ability to pay, subject to any valid contractual limitation and current law.	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.