Michigan marriage-consideration statute of frauds
An agreement upon consideration of marriage, except mutual promises to marry, is void unless written and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.
MCL 566.132(1)(c)MI · Manually written guide
Prenup laws in Michigan
Michigan Code section 557.28 preserves contracts concerning property made in contemplation of marriage, while Reed v. Reed supplies the appellate framework for defective execution, unconscionability, and changed circumstances.MCL 557.28Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
A Michigan analysis should first identify what property the contract covers, then separately examine fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, and later factual change.MCL 557.28Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
Evidence tiersection verified
Package versionmi-2026-07-23.3
Authorities24
Reviewed2026-07-23
Effective through2026-07-23
Formation and lifecycle
Execution requirements to investigate
Michigan statutory continuation upon marriage
A qualifying property contract made in contemplation of marriage remains effective after the contemplated marriage occurs.
MCL 557.28Michigan unforeseeable-change safeguard
Later facts may make enforcement unfair and unreasonable, but Reed requires circumstances unforeseeable and not contemplated when the agreement was made.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan premarital amendment boundary
Michigan has no enacted UPAA-style amendment section; a claimed change must satisfy the agreement, writing rules, contract doctrine, and postnuptial or transaction-specific law.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); MCL 566.132Michigan postnuptial classification boundary
Skaates explains that a postnuptial agreement is not invalid per se when it promotes marriage rather than encouraging divorce and evaluates separate counsel and negotiation.
Skaates v. Kayser, 333 Mich. App. 61, 963 N.W.2d 31 (2020)Michigan divorce-related agreement history
Rinvelt recognized divorce-related antenuptial agreements; Reed held an older agreement was not void merely because it predated Rinvelt.
Rinvelt v. Rinvelt, 190 Mich. App. 372, 475 N.W.2d 478 (1991)Michigan current-law and pending-bill boundary
Michigan has no enacted UPAA or UPMAA schedule; Senate Bill 160 passed the Senate in 2025 but remains proposed, so current statutes and cases govern.
MCL 557.28; 2025 Mich. S.B. 160What the agreement addresses
Permitted subjects and legal limits
Michigan continuation of premarital property contracts
A contract relating to property made between persons in contemplation of marriage remains in full force after marriage.
MCL 557.28Michigan challenger burden under Reed
Reed places proof and persuasion burdens on the challenger, subject to Benker's fact-specific disclosure presumption and other applicable doctrine.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan execution-time unconscionability branch
Reed separately allows avoidance when the agreement was unconscionable when executed, focusing on the bargain and formation record then.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan contract interpretation under Reed
Courts construe an enforceable antenuptial agreement as a contract, applying plain language, definitions, schedules, and triggers.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan nonwaivable judicial-authority boundary
Allard holds parties cannot use an antenuptial agreement to deprive a divorce court of equitable discretion under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401.
Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583, 899 N.W.2d 420 (2017)Michigan support and estate-award authority
If estates and effects are insufficient for suitable support, a divorce court may award part of the other estate and spousal support as just and reasonable.
MCL 552.23(1)Michigan contribution-based property authority
A court may award a share of property acquired by the other spouse when contribution to its acquisition, improvement, or accumulation is proved.
MCL 552.401Michigan surviving-spouse rights waiver
Before or after marriage, survivor rights may be waived by a written contract, agreement, or waiver signed by the waiving party after fair disclosure.
MCL 700.2205Michigan child-support formula boundary
Courts apply the child-support formula and may deviate only with required findings; the parties' agreement does not eliminate those requirements.
MCL 552.605Michigan child-custody best-interest boundary
Michigan's statutory best-interest factors govern child-custody determinations and cannot be conclusively fixed in a premarital agreement.
MCL 722.23Process evidence
Financial disclosure, voluntariness, counsel, and timing
Michigan controlling Reed enforcement framework
Reed permits avoidance for fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure; execution-time unconscionability; or unforeseeable later changes making enforcement unfair.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan fraud, duress, and mistake branch
Reed's first branch asks whether fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material fact affected execution.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan materiality requirement for nondisclosure
A Reed nondisclosure challenge must concern a material fact; schedules, actual knowledge, negotiations, and the omission's effect matter.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)Michigan confidential-relationship disclosure duty
Benker requires a survivor-rights waiver to be fair, equitable, reasonable, voluntary, and understanding after fair disclosure within the parties' confidential relationship.
In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich. 681, 331 N.W.2d 193 (1982)Michigan fact-specific nondisclosure presumption
Benker applied a rebuttable nondisclosure presumption on cumulative facts including complete waiver, wealth disparity, secretive finances, no disclosure recital, no separate counsel, and drafting-process defects.
In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich. 681, 331 N.W.2d 193 (1982)Michigan independent-counsel factor
Separate representation, advice opportunity, negotiation, and conflicts materially affect voluntariness and fairness, but counsel is not a categorical formality.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich. 681 (1982)Michigan signing-timeline inquiry
Michigan has no fixed waiting period; delivery, negotiation, counsel access, alternatives, wedding plans, and actual pressure determine timing's significance.
Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583 (2017)Hypotheticals, not outcomes
Practical examples
These examples show how document facts can intersect with the cited sources. They do not predict a court result.
The undisclosed tax exposure
A business interest was listed, but a material tax exposure was not. Reed makes misrepresentation and nondisclosure part of Michigan's defective-execution inquiry.Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
Ask local counsel
Was the omitted exposure material, and what did the other party know?
The post-signing life change
The parties' economic and caregiving circumstances change dramatically over a long marriage. Reed's changed-facts ground requires current Michigan counsel to evaluate the enforcement-time record.Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
Ask local counsel
Do the later facts meet Michigan's current unfairness or unreasonableness standard?
Common starting points
Michigan prenup FAQs
Answers are deliberately scoped to the cited evidence package and should be checked against current law.
What does section 557.28 authorize?
The statute preserves the validity of contracts relating to property made in contemplation of marriage.MCL 557.28
What grounds does Reed identify?
Reed restates grounds involving defective execution, unconscionability, and changed facts making enforcement unfair or unreasonable.Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
What conduct falls within defective execution?
The cited opinion discusses fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, and nondisclosure.Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
Prepare for independent advice
Questions for a Michigan lawyer
Bring the agreement, every exhibit, prior drafts, disclosure records, and a signing timeline. Then use the source-linked questions as an interview guide.
- 01
Does the agreement relate to property and fit section 557.28?MCL 557.28
- 02
Is the complete instrument written and signed by every party against whom enforcement may be sought?MCL 566.132(1)(c)
- 03
Did the contemplated marriage occur, and which provisions does section 557.28 continue?MCL 557.28
- 04
What evidence addresses each distinct Reed ground?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 05
Who challenges enforcement, and does a recognized presumption affect proof?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 06
Which execution defense is asserted, and what contemporaneous evidence supports it?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 07
Was the agreement unconscionable when signed under current Michigan doctrine?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 08
Which later event was genuinely unforeseeable and how does it make enforcement unfair?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 09
What was omitted, why was it material, and what did the other party know?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 10
What disclosure enabled an understanding waiver of death-related rights?In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich. 681, 331 N.W.2d 193 (1982)
- 11
Do the cumulative Benker circumstances support its presumption here?In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich. 681, 331 N.W.2d 193 (1982)
- 12
What meaningful opportunity for conflict-free representation did each party receive?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); In re Benker Estate, 416 Mich. 681 (1982)
- 13
What does the complete negotiation and signing chronology show?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583 (2017)
- 14
What does the complete agreement plainly cover at the disputed event?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005)
- 15
Does the term attempt to eliminate statutory authority the court retains?Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583, 899 N.W.2d 420 (2017)
- 16
Do the facts invoke section 552.23(1), and how does Allard affect the waiver?MCL 552.23(1)
- 17
What contribution evidence invokes section 552.401 despite the agreement?MCL 552.401
- 18
Does the death-triggered waiver satisfy section 2205 and reach the claimed benefit?MCL 700.2205
- 19
Would the term survive the current formula and every required deviation finding?MCL 552.605
- 20
Does any term attempt to predetermine custody without current best-interest analysis?MCL 722.23
- 21
What instrument or conduct allegedly changed the agreement?Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005); MCL 566.132
- 22
Is the later instrument a postnuptial agreement, amendment, or another transaction under its own rules?Skaates v. Kayser, 333 Mich. App. 61, 963 N.W.2d 31 (2020)
- 23
Was the agreement executed before Rinvelt, and what law governed then?Rinvelt v. Rinvelt, 190 Mich. App. 372, 475 N.W.2d 478 (1991)
- 24
When was the agreement executed, and which then-governing authorities apply?MCL 557.28; 2025 Mich. S.B. 160
Known boundaries
Package limitations
- This package encodes the cited official statutory sections but does not decide how a court would apply them to particular facts.
- Later amendments, decisions, court rules, conflicts rules, and local practice require continuing review.
- Attorney review is optional and can add a professional opinion; this package supports transparent research and issue spotting without prior endorsement.