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.
Oregon's execution-time unconscionability ground also requires all three statutory disclosure conditions: no fair and reasonable disclosure, no voluntary express written waiver, and no adequate knowledge of the other party's property or financial obligations.
Oregon tolls an applicable limitation period for a premarital-agreement claim during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel.
Oregon designates the sections as its Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, directs uniform construction, and preserves valid applications if another provision or application is invalid.
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
ORS 108.700
Oregon statutory definitions
Oregon 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.
formalitiesstatute
ORS 108.705
Oregon writing and signature requirements
An Oregon 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.
permitted subjectsstatute
ORS 108.710(1)
Oregon permitted agreement subjects
Permitted subjects include property rights and control, disposition, modification or elimination of spousal support, estate-planning arrangements, life-insurance benefits, choice of law for construction, and other personal rights and obligations not violating public policy or criminal law.
The statutory choice-of-law subject concerns construction of the agreement; Oregon's official annotation cites Proctor for the rule that this does not itself choose the law governing property disposition on dissolution.
child supportstatute
ORS 108.710(2)
Oregon child-support limitation
An Oregon premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
effective datestatute
ORS 108.715
Oregon effect of marriage
An Oregon premarital agreement becomes effective upon marriage.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
amendment revocationstatute
ORS 108.720
Oregon amendment and revocation formalities
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.
voluntarinessstatute
ORS 108.725(1)(a)
Oregon voluntary-execution safeguard
The party resisting enforcement in Oregon bears the burden to prove that the agreement was not executed voluntarily.
Rudder treats voluntariness as requiring knowledge of the terms and affected property as well as absence of coercion, intimidation, or undue pressure, evaluated from the full factual record.
financial disclosurestatute
ORS 108.725(1)(b), (3)
Oregon unconscionability and disclosure safeguard
Oregon's execution-time unconscionability ground also requires all three statutory disclosure conditions: no fair and reasonable disclosure, no voluntary express written waiver, and no adequate knowledge of the other party's property or financial obligations.
Rudder confirms that unconscionability alone is insufficient under this branch; the conditions are conjunctive, and the court decides unconscionability as a matter of law.
public assistanceofficial guidance
ORS 108.725(2); 2013 Or. Laws ch. 688, § 12
Oregon public- and medical-assistance support safeguard
A court may require support to the extent necessary to avoid eligibility for public assistance or medical assistance caused by a support modification or elimination at separation or dissolution.
House Bill 2859 added medical assistance to section 108.725 in 2013; the remedy remains limited to support necessary to avoid eligibility.
void marriagestatute
ORS 108.730
Oregon void-marriage rule
If a marriage is void, an otherwise premarital agreement is enforceable only as necessary to avoid an inequitable result.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
limitationsstatute
ORS 108.735
Oregon limitation-of-actions rule
Oregon tolls an applicable limitation period for a premarital-agreement claim during marriage while preserving equitable time defenses including laches and estoppel.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
limitationsstatute
ORS 108.740; 1987 Or. Laws ch. 715
Oregon short title, uniformity, and severability
Oregon designates the sections as its Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, directs uniform construction, and preserves valid applications if another provision or application is invalid.
Application remains fact-specific and requires current licensed-counsel review.
spousal supportofficial guidance
Annotations to ORS 108.710 and 108.725
Oregon official premarital-agreement case annotations
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.
Annotations are research aids rather than statutory text; counsel must read the full opinions, confirm subsequent history, and determine their current precedential effect.
Oregon Court of Appeals voluntariness interpretation
Rudder held the agreement involuntary on its record after considering last-minute presentation, requested but unavailable independent counsel, incomplete disclosure, financial sophistication, and the party's knowledge of the agreement and affected property.
Rudder was Oregon's first construction of section 108.725 and stresses a totality of circumstances; it does not make any single factor automatically dispositive.
Oregon historical applicability and support decision
Purcell quotes the 1987 Act's January 1, 1988 effective date and its application only to agreements executed on or after that date, then applies pre-Act law to a 1985 agreement and permits temporary support on that record.
Purcell's support analysis arose under pre-Act law; it must not be substituted for the current text of ORS 108.725(2).
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.