Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 25
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-201 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Premarital agreement" means an agreement between prospective spouses that is made in contemplation of marriage and that is effective on marriage.

2. "Property" means an interest, present or future, legal or equitable, vested or contingent, in real or personal property, including income and earnings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Hrudka v. Hrudka, 919 P.2d 179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hrudka v. Hrudka, 919 P.2d 179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “” A party seeking to enforce an ante-nuptial agreement such as this one, which was executed before the effective date of Arizona’s Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, A.R.S. §§ 25-201 to -205, must show by clear and convincing evidence, Spector v.”
Spector v. Spector, 531 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 16× “In another case an agreement which purported to alter, by its own terms, statutory provisions concerning descent of property at the death of the marital parties was held to violate A.R.S. § 25-201 and was declared invalid.”
In Re Marriage of Pownall, 5 P.3d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “) in A.R.S. §§ 25-201 to -205(Supp.1999). Parties may enter premarital agreements regarding their rights and interests in the property of either or both parties.”
In Re MacKevich's Est., 379 P.2d 119 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 16× “[2] The court further held that the agreement made by William and Andromeda three days prior to their marriage violates A.R.S. § 25-201 [3] and was therefore void.”
Alulddin v. Alfartousi, 532 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “¶22 Husband contends that the parties did not enter into the Agreement in contemplation of marriage because under Islamic law the Agreement constituted their marriage.”
Williams v. Williams, 801 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 25-201(A). Clearly this statute was intended to sanction antenuptial agreements as long as they do not violate public policy.”
Moran v. Moran, 933 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 25-201(A) (“Parties intending to marry may enter into agreements not contrary to good morals or law.”
Victor v. Victor, 866 P.2d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 25-201 (amended 1991). The Restatement, however, states the following: “Formalities which meet the requirements of the place where the parties execute the contract will usually be acceptable.”
Whitmore v. Mitchell, 733 P.2d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “2d 176 (1975); A.R.S. § 25-201. The prenuptial agreement here provides: [T]he Parties agree as follows: ****** 2.”
Rider v. Rider, 669 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 1996). “10/1 to 10/11; Iowa Cope §§ 596.1 to 596.12; Kan.”
Indus. Comm'n v. Oden, 204 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1949). “Under the provisions of section 25-201, A.C.A.1939, garnishment will issue only where plaintiff sues for debt -and makes affidavit that such, debt is due and unpaid.”
Yvoskis v. Mackevich, 379 P.2d 119 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 16× “2 The court further held that the agreement made by William and Andromeda three days prior to their marriage violates A.R.S. § 25-201 3 and was therefore void.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-201(1) — 3 cases
Alulddin v. Alfartousi, 532 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “¶22 Husband contends that the parties did not enter into the Agreement in contemplation of marriage because under Islamic law the Agreement constituted their marriage.”
Boyle v. Malta (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
Hameed v. Qandeel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-201(A) — 3 cases
Williams v. Williams, 801 P.2d 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “” A.R.S. § 25-201(A). Clearly this statute was intended to sanction antenuptial agreements as long as they do not violate public policy.”
Spector v. Spector, 531 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). “In another case an agreement which purported to alter, by its own terms, statutory provisions concerning descent of property at the death of the marital parties was held to violate A.R.S. § 25-201 and was declared invalid.”
Moran v. Moran, 933 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “See A.R.S. § 25-201(A) (“Parties intending to marry may enter into agreements not contrary to good morals or law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.