(a)A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves either of the following:
(1)That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily.
(2)The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, all of the following applied to that party:
(A)That party was not provided a fair, reasonable, and full disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party.
(B)That
party did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided.
(C)That party did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.
(b)An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.
(c)For the purposes of subdivision (a), it shall be deemed that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily unless the court finds in writing or on the record all of the following:
(1)The party against whom enforcement is sought was represented
by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement or, after being advised to seek independent legal counsel, expressly waived, in a separate writing, representation by independent legal counsel. The advisement to seek independent legal counsel shall be made at least seven calendar days before the final agreement is signed.
(2)One of the following:
(A)For an agreement executed
between January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2020, the party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time that party was first presented with the final agreement and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the agreement was signed. This requirement does not apply to nonsubstantive amendments that do not change the terms of the agreement.
(B)For an agreement executed on or after January 1, 2020, the party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time that party was first presented with the final agreement and the time the
agreement was
signed, regardless of whether the party is represented by legal counsel. This requirement does not apply to nonsubstantive amendments that do not change the terms of the agreement.
(3)The party against whom enforcement is sought, if unrepresented by legal counsel, was fully informed of the terms and basic effect of the agreement as well as the rights and obligations the party was giving up by signing the agreement, and was proficient in the language in which the explanation of the party’s rights was conducted and in which the agreement was written. The explanation of the rights and obligations relinquished shall be memorialized in writing and delivered to the party prior to signing the agreement. The unrepresented party shall, on or before the signing of the premarital agreement, execute a document declaring
that the party received the information required by this paragraph and indicating who provided that information.
(4)The agreement and the writings executed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) were not executed under duress, fraud, or undue influence, and the parties did not lack capacity to enter into the agreement.
(5)Any other factors the court deems relevant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
In Re Marriage of Friedman, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Marriage of Friedman, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “) Family Code section 1615 In In re Marriage of Bonds (2000) 24 Cal.”
Hill v. Dittmer, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1046 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The Agreement states in part: “Each party waives the provisions of California Probate Code Section 143 and California Family Code Section 1615 relating to financial disclosures.”
Clarke v. Akel (In re Clarke), 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
· cites it 3× “DISCUSSION Family Code section 1615 provides that a premarital agreement is not enforceable if it is not entered into "voluntarily.”
Jodi Lynn Erpelding v. Timothy John Erpelding, 917 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018).
“8, by contrast, reveals that the IUPAA does not universally share the UPAA's preference for "contractual autonomy and certainty over flexibility and individualized discretion." See Barbara Ann Atwood, Ten Years Later: Lingering Concerns About the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act…”
In Re Marriage of Bonds, 5 P.3d 815 (Cal. 2000).
“Family Code section 1615 places on the party seeking to avoid a premarital agreement the burden of demonstrating that the agreement was involuntary.”
Zarubin v. Miotke (In re Miotke), 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
“Finally, [Natalia] claims that the agreement is unenforceable because as required in Cal. Fam. Code § 1615 (c), [Natalia] was not represented by counsel when the agreement was signed and she was not given seven calendar days between the time that she was first presented with the…”
Marsocci v. Marsocci, 911 A.2d 690 (R.I. 2006).
“See Cal. Fam. Code § 1615 (West 2004) entitled "Unenforceable agreements; uncon-scionability; voluntariness”) for the pertinent section of the California enactment of the UPAA.”
Solano v. Solano (In Re Marriage of Solano), 2019 IL App (2d) 180011 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
“See Cal. Fam. Code § 1615 (a)(1) (West 1994) ("(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves * * * the following: (1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily[.”
In re Marriage of Turano Solano, 2019 IL App (2d) 180011 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
“See Cal. Fam. Code § 1615 (a)(1) (West 1994) (“(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves *** the following: (1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily[.”
Dardick v. Dardick, 948 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “California Family Code Section 1615(1994).”
Est. of Will, 170 Cal. App. 4th 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“[4] As relevant here, Family Code section 1615 provides: "(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves either of the following: [¶] (1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily.”
Knapp v. Ginsberg (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 7× “Tinker did not sign a separate writing expressly waiving representation by independent legal counsel, as is required by Family Code section 1615 (“section 1615”) for unrepresented PMA signatories.”
— Cal. Family Code § 1615(1994) — 1 case
Dardick v. Dardick, 948 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“California Family Code Section 1615(1994).”
— Cal. Family Code § 1615(a) — 1 case
— Cal. Family Code § 1615(a)(1) — 1 case
Knapp v. Ginsberg (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
“Tinker did not sign a separate writing expressly waiving representation by independent legal counsel, as is required by Family Code section 1615 (“section 1615”) for unrepresented PMA signatories.”
— Cal. Family Code § 1615(b)(1994) — 1 case
Dardick v. Dardick, 948 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“California Family Code Section 1615(1994).”
— Cal. Family Code § 1615(c)(2) — 1 case
— Cal. Family Code § 1615(c)(l) — 1 case
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.