Hawaii vs. California

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-1

Hawaii defines a premarital agreement as an agreement between prospective spouses made in contemplation of marriage and effective upon marriage, and defines property broadly to include present, future, legal, equitable, vested, contingent, real, personal, income, and earnings interests.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-2

A Hawaii premarital agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties and is enforceable without consideration.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-3(a)

Permitted subjects include property rights and management, disposition, modification or elimination of spousal support, estate planning, life-insurance benefits, choice of law, and other lawful personal rights and obligations.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-3(b)

A Hawaii premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-4

A Hawaii premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-5

After marriage, amendment or revocation requires a written agreement signed by the parties and is enforceable without consideration.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-6(a)(1)

The party resisting enforcement may prove that the agreement was not executed voluntarily as an alternative to the statute's unconscionability-and-disclosure branch.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-6(a)(2)

Hawaii's execution-time unconscionability branch also requires no fair and reasonable disclosure, no voluntary express written waiver of further disclosure, and no adequate knowledge of the other party's property or financial obligations.

• The three disclosure conditions are conjunctive, while involuntariness is a separate alternative ground.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-6(b)

A court may require support to the extent necessary to avoid public-assistance eligibility caused by a premarital support modification or elimination at separation or dissolution.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

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.

• A support waiver is not automatically unconscionable merely because section 572D-3 expressly permits support modification or elimination.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-7

If a marriage is void, an otherwise premarital agreement is enforceable only to the extent necessary to avoid an inequitable result.

• Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.

Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 572D-8–9, 572D-11; 1987 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 321

Hawaii tolls an applicable limitations period during marriage, preserves laches and estoppel, directs uniform construction, and identifies chapter 572D as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act enacted in 1987.

• The current official chapter index continues to list sections 572D-1 through 572D-11; every section's history note traces to 1987 Act 321.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572D-10

Written premarital agreements entered before July 1, 1987 are valid and enforceable if otherwise valid as contracts.

• The section preserves earlier written agreements rather than applying every current Act provision retroactively.

L.R.O. v. N.D.O., 148 Hawai‘i 336, 475 P.3d 1167 (2020)

L.R.O. adopted a totality framework considering wedding proximity or surprise, independent counsel or opportunity for counsel, bargaining inequality, asset disclosure, and understanding of the rights waived or the agreement's intent.

• The factors guide the fact-specific inquiry; the court upheld the agreement on the credited record and did not make counsel automatically mandatory.

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.

• The result is record-specific and does not create a safe waiting period or make same-day execution categorically valid.

L.R.O. v. N.D.O., 148 Hawai‘i 336, 475 P.3d 1167 (2020)

L.R.O. held that section 572D-6(a)(2) requires both substantive and procedural unconscionability: substantive unconscionability concerns an unjustly disproportionate post-divorce economic result, while procedural unconscionability concerns inadequate financial knowledge at execution.

• L.R.O. upheld the agreement on its facts; its definitions do not predetermine a different agreement's result.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1611

A premarital agreement must be written and signed by both parties.

• The agreement is enforceable without consideration.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(a)

The statute lists property, disposition, estate-planning, insurance, choice-of-law, and other lawful subjects.

• Other personal rights and obligations remain subject to public policy and criminal statutes.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(b)

A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1612(c)

California places counsel and unconscionability limits on premarital spousal-support provisions.

• A support provision may not be enforceable against a party who lacked independent counsel when signing.
• The provision may also be examined for unconscionability at enforcement.
• Representation alone does not necessarily cure an otherwise unenforceable provision.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1613

A premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1614

After marriage, amendment or revocation requires a written agreement signed by the parties.

• The amendment or revocation is enforceable without consideration.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1615(a)–(b)

The enforcement framework addresses voluntary execution, unconscionability, disclosure, written waiver, and adequate knowledge.

• The statute calls for fair, reasonable, and full disclosure in its unconscionability framework.
• It also addresses written waiver of further disclosure and adequate knowledge of property or obligations.
• The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law.

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.

• For agreements executed on or after January 1, 2020, the statute describes at least seven calendar days between first presentation of the final agreement and signing.
• An unrepresented party must receive a written explanation of terms, basic effect, and relinquished rights and sign a prescribed declaration.

Cal. Fam. Code § 1616

If the marriage is void, the agreement is enforceable only as necessary to avoid an inequitable result.