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.
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.
formalitiesstatute
Tex. Fam. Code § 4.002
Texas premarital-agreement formalities
A premarital agreement must be written and signed by both parties.
The agreement is enforceable without consideration.
permitted subjectsstatute
Tex. Fam. Code § 4.003(a)
Texas permitted subjects
Texas lists property, disposition, support, estate-planning, insurance, choice-of-law, and other lawful subjects.
The listed subjects include modification or elimination of spousal support.
The listed subjects include wills, trusts, life-insurance death benefits, and choice of law.
child supportstatute
Tex. Fam. Code § 4.003(b)
Texas child-support limitation
A premarital agreement may not adversely affect a child's right to support.
effective datestatute
Tex. Fam. Code § 4.004
Texas effective date
A premarital agreement becomes effective on marriage.
amendment revocationstatute
Tex. Fam. Code § 4.005
Texas amendment or revocation
After marriage, amendment or revocation requires a written agreement signed by the parties.
The amendment or revocation is enforceable without consideration.
financial disclosurestatute
Tex. Fam. Code § 4.006
Texas voluntariness and financial disclosure
Texas addresses voluntary signing and an unconscionability framework involving disclosure, written waiver, and adequate knowledge.
The framework addresses fair and reasonable disclosure of property or financial obligations.
It also addresses express written waiver of further disclosure and adequate knowledge.
The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law.
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.