Spousal-support prenup authorities by state

1. Kentucky

   • 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.
   5 sources
2. Georgia

   • 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.
   3 sources
3. Maryland

   • 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.
   3 sources
4. Alabama

   • 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.
   2 sources
5. Alaska

   • 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.
   2 sources
6. Indiana

   • 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.
   2 sources
7. Louisiana

   • 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.
   2 sources
8. Massachusetts

   • 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.
   2 sources
9. Minnesota

   • 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.
   2 sources
10. Mississippi

    • 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.
    2 sources
11. New Hampshire

    • 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.
    2 sources
12. New Mexico

    • 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.
    2 sources
13. Pennsylvania

    • 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.
    2 sources
14. California

    • Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(c) · California places counsel and unconscionability limits on premarital spousal-support provisions.
    1 source
15. Colorado

    • 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.
    1 source
16. Hawaii

    • 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.
    1 source
17. Illinois

    • 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.
    1 source
18. Michigan

    • 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.
    1 source
19. Missouri

    • 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.
    1 source
20. Montana

    • 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.
    1 source
21. Nebraska

    • 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.
    1 source
22. Nevada

    • 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.
    1 source
23. New Jersey

    • 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.
    1 source
24. New York

    • N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 236(B)(3)(3) · Maintenance terms are subject to statutory cross-references and fairness/reasonableness and unconscionability language.
    1 source
25. North Carolina

    • 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.
    1 source
26. Ohio

    • 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.
    1 source
27. Oklahoma

    • 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.
    1 source
28. Oregon

    • 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.
    1 source
29. Rhode Island

    • 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.
    1 source
30. South Carolina

    • 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.
    1 source
31. Tennessee

    • 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.
    1 source
32. Vermont

    • 15 V.S.A. § 752 · Section 752 supplies current maintenance eligibility and amount factors against which a waiver's effect must be assessed.
    1 source
33. Virginia

    • Va. Code § 20-150(4) · Virginia expressly includes spousal support among the subjects parties may address in a premarital agreement.
    1 source
34. Washington

    • RCW 26.09.090 · Section .090 supplies current maintenance factors relevant to the effect and substantive fairness of a waiver.
    1 source
35. West Virginia

    • 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.
    1 source
36. Wisconsin

    • 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.
    1 source
37. Wyoming

    • 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.
    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.