Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 46b — FAMILY LAW · Chapter 815e — Marriage
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36a (2025)

Short title: Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sections 46b-36a to 46b-36j, inclusive, may be cited as the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act.

(P.A. 95-170, S. 9, 11.)

History: P.A. 95-170 effective October 1, 1995, and applicable to any premarital agreement executed on or after that date.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Hornung v. Hornung, 146 A.3d 912 (Conn. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hornung v. Hornung, 146 A.3d 912 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 16× “The existence of a premarital agreement in a dissolu- tion action implicates additional statutory provisions, namely, the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act (act), General Statutes § 46b-36a et seq. The act autho- rizes premarital agreements and provides for the form and…”
Crews v. Crews, 989 A.2d 1060 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “Following a trial in June, 2005, the trial court rendered a judgment of dissolution, but refused to enforce the terms of the antenuptial agreement.”
Crews v. Crews, 945 A.2d 502 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 8× “Because this case concerns an antenuptial agreement entered into by the parties prior to the passage of General Statutes §§ 46b-36a to 46b-36j, it is governed by common-law principles.”
Friezo v. Friezo, 914 A.2d 533 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 46b-36g (a) provides: “A premarital agreement or amendment shall not be enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that: (1) Such party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or (2) [t]he agreement was unconscionable when it was…”
LaFrance v. Lodmell, 144 A.3d 373 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “Under the circumstances of the present case, there are two statutory schemes that relate to § 46b-66 (c), namely, chapter 909 of the General Statutes, comprising General Statutes §§ 52-408 through 52-424, and relating to arbitration proceedings, and the Connecticut Premarital…”
Winchester v. McCue, 882 A.2d 143 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “1 Prenuptial agreements entered into after October 1, 1995, are governed by the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act, General Statutes § 46b-36a et seq. The agreement at, issue was executed on October 7, 1988, and, therefore, its validity is determined by common law.”
Bedrick v. Bedrick, 17 A.3d 17 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 2× “Prenuptial agreements entered into on or after October 1,1995, are governed by the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act, General Statutes § 46b-36a et seq. The statutory scheme provides that a prenuptial agreement is unenforceable when: (1) the challenger did not enter the…”
Chang v. Chang, 155 A.3d 1272 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Premarital agreements entered into on or after October 1, 1995, are governed by the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act, General Statutes § 46b-36a et seq.Section 46b-36g (a) provides in relevant part: "A premarital agreement or amendment shall not be enforceable if the party…”
Dornemann v. Dornemann, 850 A.2d 273 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 46b-36a et seq. Prior to the act, our Supreme Court had set forth the standards for determining the validity of a prenuptial agreement in McHugh v.”
Oldani v. Oldani, 34 A.3d 407 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “Before turning to the defendant’s claim, we first set forth the legal standard governing our review.”
Bevilacqua v. Bevilacqua, 242 A.3d 542 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). “In response, the plaintiff argues that the defendant’s inability to provide testimony was due to his failure to appear at trial, and, in the alternative, that the court properly ordered the defendant to pay alimony because the totality of the evidence demonstrated that the…”
Renstrup v. Renstrup, 287 A.3d 1095 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “(3) [e]xtraordinary parental expenses . . . (4) [n]eeds of a parent’s other dependents .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.