Colorado Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act, C.R.S. §§ 14-2-301–313, with current sections, enactment history, and qualified appellate interpretations.
Washington's Matson and Bernard two-prong framework, community-property and dissolution statutes, child-law limits, death agreements, and historical checkpoints.
For a substantively unfair agreement, the proponent must prove full property disclosure and free execution on independent advice with full knowledge of rights.
Before signing, a party needs reasonably accurate property, liability, and income information plus good-faith values, or adequate knowledge or a reasonable basis for it.
Access requires reasonable time to decide, locate counsel, obtain and consider advice, plus financial ability or paid reasonable fees when the other party is represented.
Which state's law governs each disputed issue, and is the agreement's choice-of-law clause effective?
02
Where did the parties live, sign, marry, own property, and expect to perform the agreement?
03
Which current statutes and later cases are absent from either source-catalogued package?
04
What execution, counsel, disclosure, waiver, and financial-knowledge evidence can actually be proved?
Every source used on this page
Comparison authorities
The complete state guides contain additional authorities and limitations beyond this focused comparison.
propertystatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-302
Colorado definitions
Colorado defines premarital and marital agreements, amendment, marital rights, property, records, and signatures, including electronic records and signatures.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
effective datestatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-303
Colorado scope and applicability
The current part applies to agreements signed on or after July 1, 2014 and preserves rights under earlier agreements.
The part excludes specified court-approval and anticipated-or-pending dissolution agreements.
permitted subjectsstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-304
Colorado governing-law rule
Chosen law requires a significant relationship at signing and no conflict with section 14-2-309 or fundamental Colorado public policy.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
formalitiesstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-306
Colorado signed-record requirement
An agreement must be in a record and signed by both parties and is enforceable without consideration.
Electronic records and signatures can qualify, but the complete record must be preserved.
permitted subjectsstatute
C.R.S. §§ 14-2-302(4)–(5), 14-2-310
Colorado agreement scope and limits
Colorado permits modification of defined marital rights but bars specified child, domestic-violence, dissolution-penalty, and public-policy terms.
Custodial-responsibility terms are not binding on the court.
effective datestatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-307
Colorado agreement effectiveness
A premarital agreement takes effect on marriage; a marital agreement takes effect when both parties sign.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
void marriagestatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-308
Colorado void-marriage rule
For a void marriage, a premarital agreement is enforceable only as necessary to avoid an inequitable result.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
voluntarinessstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-309(1)(a)
Colorado voluntariness and duress
An agreement is unenforceable if the resisting party proves consent was involuntary or resulted from duress.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
independent counselstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-309(1)(b), (2)
Colorado access to independent representation
Access requires reasonable time to decide, locate counsel, obtain and consider advice, plus financial ability or paid reasonable fees when the other party is represented.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
independent counselstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-309(1)(c), (3)
Colorado waiver-notice safeguard
Unless represented at signing, a party must receive the prescribed conspicuous notice or a plain-language explanation of modified or waived rights.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
financial disclosurestatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-309(1)(d), (4)
Colorado financial-disclosure safeguard
Before signing, a party needs reasonably accurate property, liability, and income information plus good-faith values, or adequate knowledge or a reasonable basis for it.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
spousal supportstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-309(5), (7)
Colorado maintenance and fee safeguard
An otherwise enforceable agreement is unenforceable to the extent a maintenance or attorney-fee term is unconscionable at enforcement.
The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law.
child supportstatute
C.R.S. § 14-2-310
Colorado child and custody limits
A term may not adversely affect child support, and custodial-responsibility terms do not bind the court.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
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.
Section 14-2-309(5) was amended by SB 15-264 effective August 5, 2015.
formalitiescase reporter
In re Marriage of Zander, 2021 CO 12, 480 P.3d 676
Zander held the predecessor Act's writing-and-signature rule controlled and partial performance did not validate an oral agreement.
Zander concerns a 2007 marital agreement; counsel must map it carefully to the current Act.
independent counselcase reporter
In re Marriage of Williams, No. 25CA0234 (Colo. App. Dec. 4, 2025) (not published under C.A.R. 35(e))
Recent Colorado plain-language interpretation
Williams concluded that legalistic waiver language was not the required plain-language explanation for an unrepresented signer.
The nonpublished opinion is an issue-spotting signal, not binding precedent; counsel must determine permissible use.
voluntarinesscase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479, 730 P.2d 668 (1986)
Washington two-prong premarital framework
Washington first tests substantive fairness; an unfair agreement may still be enforced only if procedural fairness is proved.
Matson invalidated its agreement on the specific fairness, timing, counsel, and knowledge record.
limitationscase reporter
In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895, 204 P.3d 907 (2009); Matson
Washington substantive-fairness first prong
The first prong asks whether the agreement made fair and reasonable provision for the spouse resisting enforcement.
If this prong is satisfied the agreement may be enforced without reaching procedural fairness.
voluntarinesscase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d at 483–87
Washington procedural-fairness second prong
For a substantively unfair agreement, the proponent must prove full property disclosure and free execution on independent advice with full knowledge of rights.
The prong is conjunctive and especially scrutinized when the agreement eliminates community-property rights.
financial disclosurecase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479
Washington amount-character-value disclosure
Procedural fairness requires full disclosure of the amount, character, and value of property involved.
General wealth awareness does not automatically prove the full Matson requirement.
independent counselcase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479
Washington independent-advice safeguard
A substantively unfair agreement requires free execution on independent advice with full knowledge of each spouse's rights.
Advice from the proponent's attorney and a bare suggestion to find counsel may be insufficient on the facts.
timingcase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479
Washington timing and intelligent-waiver inquiry
Washington has no fixed waiting period; Matson held its last-days process did not provide sufficient opportunity for intelligent, voluntary waiver.
Matson's outcome does not create a numerical rule divorced from advice, knowledge, sophistication, and disclosure.
voluntarinesscase reporter
In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895, 902, 204 P.3d 907 (2009)
Washington proponent burden
The spouse seeking enforcement bears the burden under Washington's premarital-agreement framework.
Use Bernard and later published authority for the current allocation and standard.
limitationsofficial guidance
Title 26 RCW
Washington domestic-relations statutory context
Title 26 supplies mandatory marriage, community-property, dissolution, support, and child rules.
Washington has no comprehensive enacted UPAA or UPMAA.
propertyofficial guidance
RCW 26.09.080
Washington just-and-equitable baseline
Absent an enforceable agreement, the court makes a just and equitable disposition of community and separate property after statutory factors.
Matson distinguishes merely preserving separate property from waiving statutory equitable distribution.
propertyofficial guidance
RCW 26.16.010–.030
Washington community-property baseline
Title 26.16 defines separate and community property and management rights against which contract terms operate.
Tracing, commingling, reimbursement, and creditor rules require current counsel review.
permitted subjectscase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479; RCW 26.09.080
Washington recognized property-contract scope
Prospective spouses may contract about property and marital rights if the agreement satisfies Washington fairness safeguards.
Child terms and statutory death agreements have independent limits.
spousal supportofficial guidance
RCW 26.09.090
Washington maintenance baseline
Section .090 supplies current maintenance factors relevant to the effect and substantive fairness of a waiver.
Matson/Bernard fairness and construction still govern the contractual clause.
child supportcase reporter
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997)
Washington parenting-plan nonbinding boundary
A trial court is not bound by parenting-plan provisions in a premarital agreement; current statutory child interests control.
Current RCW 26.09.187 and .191 criteria and safety limits require contemporaneous review.
child supportofficial guidance
RCW 26.09.100; chapter 26.19 RCW
Washington statutory child-support boundary
Courts order child support under chapter 26.19 and may modify it; a premarital waiver cannot conclusively control.
Worksheets, deviations, health care, and current amendments require review when support is set.
formalitiesofficial guidance
RCW 26.16.120
Washington community-property death-agreement formalities
A community-property agreement effective at death must be written, signed and sealed, witnessed, acknowledged, and certified like a real-estate deed.
These special formalities are not automatically the execution rule for every divorce-focused prenup.
amendment revocationofficial guidance
RCW 26.16.120
Washington death-agreement amendment and equity limits
A section .120 death agreement may be altered in the same manner and remains subject to creditor rights, fraud, and equitable cancellation.
Other premarital modifications require separate contract and Matson analysis.
effective datecase reporter
In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479
Washington premarital effectiveness checkpoint
A premarital agreement is made for the contemplated marriage; the record must confirm marriage and distinguish later property transactions.
Deeds and postmarital agreements can have different rules.
effective datecase reporter
Friedlander v. Friedlander, 80 Wn.2d 293 (1972); Matson; Bernard
Washington common-law applicability boundary
Washington has no UPAA or UPMAA applicability schedule; execution date and then-current cases and statutes govern.
Do not import a uniform-act date or assume current text is retroactive.