A blank topic is intentionally visible. The page never fills an uncatalogued state-law rule from general model knowledge.
formalities
Minnesota
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(3)
A covered antenuptial agreement must be written, executed before two witnesses, and acknowledged by both parties before a person authorized to administer an oath.
Duly acknowledged and attested agreements provide prima facie proof of acknowledged matters, while current execution independently requires two witnesses and acknowledgment.
The current Wisconsin package does not encode this as a standalone source topic. That is a research gap, not a legal conclusion.
voluntariness
Minnesota
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b
Current procedural fairness requires full disclosure, meaningful counsel opportunity, exact formalities, voluntary execution free of duress, and execution at least seven days before marriage.
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.
formalitiesofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(3)
Minnesota current execution formalities
A covered antenuptial agreement must be written, executed before two witnesses, and acknowledged by both parties before a person authorized to administer an oath.
This current rule applies under subdivision 6 only to agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024.
permitted subjectsofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(b)
Minnesota permitted subjects
A conforming agreement may address marital and nonmarital property at dissolution or separation, spousal maintenance, and specified estate rights.
The list does not authorize prospective waiver of child support, custody duties, or other mandatory law.
voluntarinessofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b
Minnesota current procedural-fairness test
Current procedural fairness requires full disclosure, meaningful counsel opportunity, exact formalities, voluntary execution free of duress, and execution at least seven days before marriage.
No single recital substitutes for proof of all current statutory elements.
financial disclosureofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(a)–(b)(1)
Minnesota nonwaivable full disclosure
Each party must provide reasonably accurate material income facts, good-faith property-value estimates, and the basis for those disclosures; this requirement cannot be waived.
Actual knowledge or a boilerplate waiver does not replace the current nonwaivable disclosure requirement.
Each party must have a meaningful opportunity to consult independent counsel of that party's choosing.
The statute requires opportunity for antenuptial agreements; actual separate representation becomes mandatory for postnuptial agreements.
acknowledgmentofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subds. 1(d), 1b(b)(3)
Minnesota witness and acknowledgment proof
Duly acknowledged and attested agreements provide prima facie proof of acknowledged matters, while current execution independently requires two witnesses and acknowledgment.
Prima facie effect does not conclusively prove disclosure, voluntariness, counsel opportunity, or substantive fairness.
timingofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(5)
Minnesota seven-day execution rule
A covered antenuptial agreement must be entered into and executed no less than seven days before marriage.
The exact statutory interval controls current agreements; older instruments require their own historical law.
limitationsofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(c)
Minnesota seven-day burden allocation
Execution at least seven days before marriage creates a presumption of enforceability and puts the burden on the challenger; a shorter interval removes the presumption and puts the burden on the proponent.
A favorable burden does not eliminate any substantive or procedural requirement.
voluntarinessofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(b)(4)
Minnesota voluntary execution free of duress
Current law expressly requires that the agreement be entered into voluntarily and free of duress.
Formal compliance and counsel access do not conclusively negate duress.
formalitiesofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1b(d)
Minnesota personal-execution boundary
A power of attorney does not satisfy the current writing, witness, and acknowledgment execution requirement.
Other capacity or electronic-execution questions still require current counsel review.
limitationsofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c(a)
Minnesota substantive-unconscionability test
Courts consider whether all or part is so substantively unfair as to be unconscionable by its terms or because of qualifying changed circumstances.
The inquiry may be provision-specific and should not be reduced to economic disparity alone.
spousal supportofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c(a)
Minnesota unforeseen-change safeguard
Drastically changed circumstances not originally foreseen may make enforcement inconsistent with the parties' reasonable expectations at execution.
An ordinary unfavorable result does not automatically satisfy this statutory standard.
spousal supportofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1c(b)
Minnesota default-award deviation boundary
An agreement need not approximate statutory property division or maintenance, and deviation from default standards alone does not establish unconscionability.
The provision remains subject to all other statutory and mandatory-law limits.
limitationsofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(e)
Minnesota express-severability rule
If the agreement unambiguously permits severability, a court may sever an unenforceable provision and enforce the remainder.
Severability is permissive and does not validate an agreement lacking required formation safeguards.
effective dateofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1(a), (c)
Minnesota marriage consideration and operative boundary
The agreement is made before solemnization, and marriage itself supplies adequate consideration for a conforming agreement.
The statute does not turn an unsolemnized premarital instrument into an operative marital agreement.
amendment revocationofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 2a
Minnesota amendment and revocation route
After marriage, an antenuptial agreement may be amended or revoked only by a valid postnuptial agreement complying with section 519.11 and other Minnesota law.
Oral change or marital conduct does not satisfy subdivision 2a's exclusive route.
independent counselofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1d(a)–(c)
Minnesota mandatory separate counsel for postnuptial agreements
A postnuptial agreement must satisfy applicable antenuptial safeguards, except the seven-day marriage rule, and each spouse must actually have separate counsel at execution.
An opportunity to consult is insufficient for a postnuptial instrument.
limitationsofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 1d(d)
Minnesota two-year postnuptial presumption
A postnuptial agreement is presumed unenforceable if either spouse begins separation or dissolution within two years, unless the proponent proves it fair and equitable.
This presumption applies to postnuptial agreements, not the seven-day antenuptial burden rule.
child supportofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1
Minnesota child best-interest boundary
Custody and parenting time require current best-interest findings on all relevant statutory factors.
Section 519.11's subject list does not authorize binding advance custody terms.
child supportofficial guidance
Minn. Stat. § 518A.35
Minnesota child-support guideline boundary
The child-support guideline is a rebuttable presumption in proceedings establishing or modifying support, subject to approved agreements and lawful deviation rules.
A premarital term cannot make future support self-executing or prevent modification.
A premarital waiver of survivor election and related probate rights must comply with section 519.11; postmarital waivers have the separate writing, signature, and fair-disclosure rule in section 524.2-213.
Broad all-rights language has the specific effect stated in current section 524.2-213.
The rewritten section applies to antenuptial and postnuptial agreements executed on or after August 1, 2024; earlier instruments require the prior statute and common law.
Do not retroactively impose the new seven-day, witness, or burden rules on an older agreement.
effective datecase reporter
Kremer v. Kremer, 912 N.W.2d 617 (Minn. 2018)
Minnesota pre-2024 marital-property framework
Under former section 519.11, statutory safe-harbor treatment was limited and common-law Kinney factors governed marital-property provisions; Kremer found inadequate consideration and duress on its record.
Kremer interprets superseded text and must not displace the rewritten statute for current agreements.
effective datecase reporter
In re Estate of Kinney, 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007)
Minnesota older common-law fairness factors
Kinney applied common-law equitable-and-fair execution factors to a 1969 agreement, including fraud, undue influence, duress, consideration, knowledge, rights, and counsel opportunity.
Kinney is historical authority; current agreements are governed by the express post-August 2024 statute.
formalitiesofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(1)
Wisconsin marital-property agreement formalities
A marital-property agreement must be a document signed by both spouses; only the spouses may be parties, and consideration is unnecessary.
Section 766.58 does not make notarization a general between-spouses validity formality, though recording and particular transactions may require more.
permitted subjectsofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(3)
Wisconsin permitted property subjects
Subject to listed statutory limits, spouses may contract about property rights, management, disposition at dissolution or death, support, estate arrangements, nonprobate transfers, choice of law, and other lawful property matters.
Transfers at death also invoke chapter 854 and cannot be analyzed solely as divorce terms.
child supportofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(2)
Wisconsin child-support nonimpairment rule
A marital-property agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.
Current chapter 767 support standards govern the actual order.
propertyofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(3)(c), (e)–(f), (3m)
Wisconsin agreement-based death transfers
An agreement may address death disposition and qualifying nonprobate transfers, but chapter 854 applies and dissolution revokes specified provisions.
A marital-property agreement does not authorize the parties to eliminate required court or public-record procedures.
amendment revocationofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(4)
Wisconsin amendment and revocation rule
A marital-property agreement may be amended or revoked only by a later marital-property agreement.
Special statutory classification forms may have additional termination rules not generalized here.
effective dateofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(5)
Wisconsin premarital effectiveness rule
People intending to marry may execute the agreement as if married, but it becomes effective only upon marriage.
Later domicile and choice-of-law questions require current conflicts analysis.
limitationsofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(6)(a), (8)
Wisconsin statutory unconscionability defense
The resisting spouse may prove the agreement was unconscionable when made; the court decides unconscionability as a matter of law.
Section 767.61's divorce-equity review is a related but distinct analysis.
voluntarinessofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(6)(b)
Wisconsin statutory voluntary-execution defense
A marital-property agreement is not enforceable if the resisting spouse proves that execution was not voluntary.
The statute assigns this ground to the spouse resisting enforcement.
financial disclosureofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(6)(c)
Wisconsin statutory disclosure-and-notice defense
The resisting spouse may establish nonenforcement by proving both lack of fair and reasonable disclosure under the circumstances and lack of notice of the other spouse's property or financial obligations before execution.
The statutory elements are conjunctive; Button-line divorce equity cases may demand a separate fairness inquiry.
independent counselofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(8)
Wisconsin representation boundary
Joint representation, one-sided representation, or one party's lack of counsel does not by itself make an agreement unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable.
The statute rejects an automatic rule, not the evidentiary relevance of legal guidance or conflicts.
spousal supportofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 766.58(3)(d), (9)
Wisconsin support and public-assistance floors
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.
The safety valves do not automatically invalidate unrelated agreement provisions.
Button requires fair and reasonable financial disclosure, free and voluntary entry, and substantively fair divorce provisions; the challenger bears the persuasion burden.
The linked published appellate opinion states and applies Button; current section 767.61 must also be checked.
financial disclosurecourt opinion
Mary A. Kordus v. Daniel Kordus, No. 2008AP111; Button; Schumacher
Wisconsin actual-knowledge substitute boundary
For Button disclosure review, only actual knowledge of the other party's assets and values substitutes for disclosure; constructive or imputed knowledge is insufficient.
This opinion's result is fact-specific and should not replace the text of section 766.58(6)(c).
Wisconsin's divorce-equity review examines whether circumstances at divorce were beyond the parties' contemplation; ordinary anticipated risks do not alone rescue a spouse from an unwise agreement.
The linked later published opinion applies Warren; counsel should retrieve the reporter opinion for final reliance.
propertycourt opinion
Heise v. Heise, 2004 WI App 186, ¶¶ 15–16
Wisconsin contract-construction rule
A valid premarital agreement is a binding contract interpreted under ordinary construction rules; courts may not redraft it, and it controls covered property division.
Validity and equity must be resolved before treating the agreement as controlling.
propertycourt opinion
Jones v. Estate of Jones, 2002 WI 61, ¶¶ 16–18, 253 Wis. 2d 158, 646 N.W.2d 280
Wisconsin affirmative homestead waiver
Wisconsin favors premarital agreements, but waiver of statutory homestead protection must be affirmative and supported by the agreement's language.
General contract validity does not itself establish waiver of every statutory survivor right.
propertyofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. § 767.61(3)(L)
Wisconsin property-division agreement review
A written pre- or postmarital property-distribution agreement is a statutory property-division factor but is not binding if inequitable to either party; equity is presumed.
Chapter 766 enforceability and chapter 767 divorce equity must not be collapsed into one test.
child supportofficial guidance
Wis. Stat. §§ 767.41, 767.511
Wisconsin custody and support boundary
Custody and placement turn on current statutory best interests, while support is judicially determined under the percentage standard and statutory factors.
Current facts, administrative support rules, safety provisions, and later amendments require contemporaneous review.