Cal. Codes » Family Code / DIVISION 4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS DURING MARRIAGE / PART 5. MARITAL AGREEMENTS / CHAPTER 2. Uniform Premarital Agreement Act / ARTICLE 1. Preliminary Provisions
California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 1600 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2019 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Bonds, 5 P.3d 815 (Cal. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Bonds, 5 P.3d 815 (Cal. 2000). “(Fam. Code § 1600 et seq. (hereafter referred to sometimes as the California Uniform Act); see former Civ.”
Sturm v. Moyer, 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “" Before the marriage, couples may change the character of property acquired during marriage from community property to separate property by means of a premarital agreement under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act ( Fam. Code, § 1600 et seq., hereafter the UPAA).”
Facter v. Facter, 212 Cal. App. 4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) The court noted that the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (Fam. Code, § 1600 et seq.; UPAA) was enacted in California in 1985 (12 years after Higgason was decided), and that its provisions expressly apply to premarital agreements.”
Rider v. Rider, 669 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 1996). “§§ 23-801 to 23-811; Mr.Rev.Stat Anw. tit. 19, §§ 141 to 151; Mont.”
In re the Marriage of: Priscilla Diane Herr & Shizuo Yamada (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “5 Cal. Fam. Code§§ 1600, 1601. As it existed when the parties entered into their prenuptial agreement, California law provided6 that: (a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves either of the following: (1) That party did…”
Sturm v. Moyer (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). “” Before the marriage, couples may change the character of property acquired during marriage from community property to separate property by means of a premarital agreement under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (Fam. Code, § 1600 et seq., hereafter the UPAA).”
Marriage of Erler CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “1 She complains that, while the court made findings on her claims that the agreement was unenforceable, unconscionable or involuntarily entered for purposes of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (the Act) (Fam. Code, § 1600 et seq.), the court did not address rescission due to…”
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.