Prenup timing authorities by state

1. Louisiana

   • 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.
   2 sources
2. New Hampshire

   • 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.
   2 sources
3. Alabama

   • 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.
   1 source
4. Alaska

   • 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.
   1 source
5. California

   • 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.
   1 source
6. Georgia

   • 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.
   1 source
7. Hawaii

   • 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.
   1 source
8. Indiana

   • 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.
   1 source
9. Kentucky

   • 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.
   1 source
10. Maryland

    • 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.
    1 source
11. Massachusetts

    • 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.
    1 source
12. Michigan

    • 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.
    1 source
13. Minnesota

    • 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.
    1 source
14. Mississippi

    • 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.
    1 source
15. Missouri

    • 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.
    1 source
16. Montana

    • 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.
    1 source
17. New Jersey

    • 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.
    1 source
18. New Mexico

    • 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.
    1 source
19. North Carolina

    • 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.
    1 source
20. Ohio

    • 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.
    1 source
21. Oklahoma

    • 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.
    1 source
22. Pennsylvania

    • 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.
    1 source
23. South Carolina

    • 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.
    1 source
24. Tennessee

    • 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.
    1 source
25. Vermont

    • 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.
    1 source
26. Washington

    • 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.
    1 source

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.