50-state evidence matrix

Prenup review and signing timing

Catalogued authorities that expressly address time between presentation, counsel review, and execution.

26 states have 28 separately catalogued authority records for this topic. 24 states show a visible coverage gap.

50states shown

26with evidence records

28matching authorities

24visible gaps

Manual editorial field guide

Timing is not a countdown displayed beside the wedding date. It is a sequence of delivery, disclosure, advice, revision, reflection, and execution events, evaluated under whatever safeguards the relevant jurisdiction actually uses.

403 manually authored words · evidence tables continue below

Measure the right events

Record first discussion, first term sheet, first complete draft, each material revision, each financial schedule, counsel engagement, advice sessions, final delivery, and signature. A single ‘draft received’ date conceals whether the reader had the operative economics and attachments. The chronology should also show the planned wedding, travel, vendor deadlines, and realistic postponement options.

Use native timestamps and transmission records where available. Document properties can be altered, email can be forwarded, and printed copies lose metadata, so corroborate important dates instead of treating one artifact as infallible.

Distinguish revision from surprise

Late changes are not equal. Correcting an address differs from adding a support waiver, remedy, property schedule, or governing-law clause. Redline material changes and record who proposed them, when they were explained, and whether advice followed. This makes the timing analysis substantive rather than mechanical.

Likewise, a short interval does not itself prove pressure, and a long interval does not prove meaningful review. The process may have stalled, documents may have been incomplete, or one party may have lacked access to advice. State-specific rules and actual circumstances must do the work.

Design the process before the deadline

For an unsigned agreement, the evidence map can improve process without giving legal advice: circulate complete drafts, track changes, deliver schedules together, leave room for independent review, document translations, and avoid treating the ceremony as an immutable forcing event. If the timeline is already compressed, the system should surface that fact rather than promise a rushed signature will solve it.

For an old agreement, reconstruct what happened using contemporaneous records and clearly label gaps. A retrospective timeline is still useful even when no single source captures every event.

Questions for the document

What to ask before drawing a conclusion

When did each party receive the first complete draft and every material revision?
Were disclosures, translations, and advice available for the same version that was signed?
Which late changes altered economic rights or procedural protections?
What wedding, travel, immigration, housing, or family constraints shaped the available choices?

Outside evidence

What the agreement cannot prove alone

Native drafts, redlines, email headers, portal logs, courier records, and signature audit trail
Calendar entries, counsel appointments, invoices, translation dates, and question lists
Wedding contracts, travel bookings, notices, postponement terms, and related deadlines
A neutral event chronology identifying verified dates, conflicting records, and unresolved gaps

State	Coverage	Citations and scoped summaries	Next step
Alabama (AL) al-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Brown v. Brown, 26 So. 3d 1210 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007), aff'd, Ex parte Brown (Ala. 2009) Brown upheld an agreement signed the day before the wedding on its particular evidence and confirms Alabama has no fixed premarital waiting period.	Open AL checklist →
Alaska (AK) ak-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Andrew B. v. Abbie B., 494 P.3d 522 (Alaska 2021) Alaska has no fixed statutory waiting-period safe harbor for an ordinary prenup; Andrew makes the actual time to receive, review, understand, and respond to the agreement essential to voluntariness.	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 § 1615(c)(1)–(3) The voluntariness framework includes counsel advisement, a seven-calendar-day period, and written protections for an unrepresented party.	Open CA checklist →
Colorado (CO) co-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	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	1 source	Mallen v. Mallen, 280 Ga. 43, 622 S.E.2d 812 (2005) Mallen enforced an agreement first presented roughly nine or ten days before the wedding on its particular record and confirms Georgia has no fixed statutory waiting period.	Open GA checklist →
Hawaii (HI) hi-2026-07-22.3	1 source	L.R.O. v. N.D.O., 148 Hawai‘i 336, 475 P.3d 1167 (2020) L.R.O. upheld the agreement despite same-day execution where credited findings showed prior delivery, negotiation, understanding, and an opportunity to obtain counsel.	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	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	1 source	Harrill v. Harrill, 258 N.E.3d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) Harrill upheld voluntary execution where an experienced adult received a draft days before signing, had an opportunity to retain counsel, negotiated a change, signed more than a week before the wedding, and conceded the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.	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	1 source	Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.010(5); Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990) Kentucky's current statute of frauds states no fixed premarital waiting period; timing remains evidence relevant to Gentry's fraud, duress, mistake, and voluntary-execution analysis rather than a numerical safe harbor.	Open KY checklist →
Louisiana (LA) la-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	La. Civ. Code art. 1962 A threat to do a lawful act or exercise a right generally is not duress, although an act lawful only in appearance may qualify. Burtner v. Burtner, 2019-0175 (La. App. 1 Cir. Oct. 1, 2019) Burtner affirmed enforcement of an authentic-act agreement signed three days before the wedding on credibility findings that rejected fraud and duress; Louisiana has no fixed numerical waiting period.	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	1 source	Cannon v. Cannon, 384 Md. 537, 865 A.2d 563 (2005) Maryland has no fixed premarital waiting period; Cannon evaluated delivery, discussion, opportunity for advice, and voluntariness on the complete chronology.	Open MD checklist →
Massachusetts (MA) ma-2026-07-23.3	1 source	DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002); Austin v. Austin, 445 Mass. 601 (2005) Massachusetts has no fixed waiting period; courts assess delivery, drafts, negotiation, counsel work, wedding pressure, and understanding on the full chronology.	Open MA checklist →
Michigan (MI) mi-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583 (2017) Michigan has no fixed waiting period; delivery, negotiation, counsel access, alternatives, wedding plans, and actual pressure determine timing's significance.	Open MI checklist →
Minnesota (MN) mn-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(5) A covered antenuptial agreement must be entered into and executed no less than seven days before marriage.	Open MN checklist →
Mississippi (MS) ms-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Sanderson v. Sanderson, 170 So. 3d 430 (Miss. 2014) Mississippi has no fixed waiting period; timing is assessed with wedding scope, counsel, disclosure, surprise, and coercion.	Open MS checklist →
Missouri (MO) mo-2026-07-23.3	1 source	In re Marriage of Thomas, 199 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006); Miles v. Werle, 977 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) Missouri has no fixed premarital waiting period; draft delivery, wedding proximity, counsel access, negotiation, and practical alternatives are assessed together.	Open MO checklist →
Montana (MT) mt-2026-07-22.3	1 source	In re Marriage of Shirilla, 2004 MT 28, 319 Mont. 385, 89 P.3d 1 Shirilla treats capacity, duress, fraud, and undue influence—shown through factors probative of premarital coercion—as relevant to voluntary execution.	Open MT checklist →
Nebraska (NE) ne-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open NE checklist →
Nevada (NV) nv-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open NV checklist →
New Hampshire (NH) nh-2026-07-23.3	2 sources	In re Estate of Hollett, 150 N.H. 39 (2003) Timing is paramount to voluntariness, and the signer must have reasonable time to reflect, negotiate, investigate, and make effective use of independent advice. In the Matter of Yannalfo, 147 N.H. 597 (2002) Presentation about a day before the wedding and a statement that marriage will not occur, standing alone, did not prove duress in Yannalfo; additional circumstances control.	Open NH checklist →
New Jersey (NJ) nj-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.J. Stat. § 37:2-38(a), (c) New Jersey's Act sets no fixed minimum number of days before the ceremony; chronology may still be evidence relevant to involuntary execution and the execution-time circumstances in section 37:2-38.	Open NJ checklist →
New Mexico (NM) nm-2026-07-22.3	1 source	N.M. Stat. § 40-3A-7 New Mexico's Act sets no fixed minimum number of days before the wedding; chronology may still be evidence relevant to the judicial voluntariness determination.	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	Kornegay v. Robinson, 176 N.C. App. 19, 625 S.E.2d 805 (2006) Kornegay held that summary judgment was improper on voluntariness where the record included presentation en route to the wedding, a brief signing meeting, no explanation or reading, and disputed disclosure and knowledge facts.	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	Fletcher v. Fletcher, 68 Ohio St. 3d 464 (1994) Very short pre-wedding presentation combined with significant postponement hardship, embarrassment, or emotional distress raises a presumption of overreaching or coercion.	Open OH checklist →
Oklahoma (OK) ok-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Griffin v. Griffin, 2004 OK CIV APP 58; Leonard v. Prentice, 1935 OK 427 Oklahoma has no fixed waiting period; timing is reviewed with negotiations, counsel, disclosure, voluntariness, comprehension, and wedding circumstances.	Open OK checklist →
Oregon (OR) or-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open OR checklist →
Pennsylvania (PA) pa-2026-07-22.3	1 source	Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162 (1990) Simeone affirmed rejection of duress where the final agreement arrived on the wedding eve but the credited record showed months of prior discussion and ample opportunity to seek counsel.	Open PA checklist →
Rhode Island (RI) ri-2026-07-22.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open RI checklist →
South Carolina (SC) sc-2026-07-23.3	1 source	Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 612 S.E.2d 469 (Ct. App. 2005); Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 585 S.E.2d 501 (2003) South Carolina has no fixed statutory waiting period; delivery, advice, disclosure, signing, and wedding timing remain fact-specific evidence.	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	Boote v. Shivers, 198 S.W.3d 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); In re Estate of Lester Stokes, No. W2021-00249-COA-R3-CV Tennessee has no fixed waiting period; delivery, counsel, disclosure, wedding proximity, health, and dependence are evaluated together.	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	Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16 Vermont has no fixed waiting period; Lacroix treated two-week delivery and signing one day before the wedding within the total record.	Open VT checklist →
Virginia (VA) va-2026-07-21.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open VA checklist →
Washington (WA) wa-2026-07-23.3	1 source	In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479 Washington has no fixed waiting period; Matson held its last-days process did not provide sufficient opportunity for intelligent, voluntary waiver.	Open WA checklist →
West Virginia (WV) wv-2026-07-23.5	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open WV checklist →
Wisconsin (WI) wi-2026-07-23.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	Open WI checklist →
Wyoming (WY) wy-2026-07-23.3	No separate record	The package does not encode this as a standalone topic. No legal absence is inferred.	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.