Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36d (2026)

Content of premarital agreement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Parties to a premarital agreement may contract with respect to:

(1) The rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired or located;

(2) The right to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise manage and control property;

(3) The disposition of property upon separation, marital dissolution, death, or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;

(4) The modification or elimination of spousal support;

(5) The making of a will, trust or other arrangement to carry out the provisions of the agreement;

(6) The ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit from a life insurance policy;

(7) The right of either party as a participant or participant's spouse under a retirement plan;

(8) The choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and

(9) Any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations.

(b) No provision made under subdivisions (1) to (9), inclusive, of subsection (a) of this section may be in violation of public policy or of a statute imposing a criminal penalty.

(c) The right of a child to support may not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement. Any provision relating to the care, custody and visitation or other provisions affecting a child shall be subject to judicial review and modification.

(P.A. 95-170, S. 3, 11.)

History: P.A. 95-170 effective October 1, 1995, and applicable to premarital agreements 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 5 cases, 2000–2018 · 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 4× “221 ; and alimony is a permissible subject matter for premarital agree- ments; General Statutes § 46b-36d (a) (4) (parties to premarital agreement may contract with respect to ‘‘[t]he modification or elimination of spousal support’’); in my view, alimony is more appropriately…”

Jodi Lynn Erpelding v. Timothy John Erpelding, 917 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018). “1982) (en banc); Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-36d(a)(4) (West, Westlaw through 2017 Jan.”

In Re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman, 5 P.3d 839 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 9-11-403); Connecticut (Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 46b-36d); Delaware (Del.”

Peterson v. Sykes-Peterson, 37 A.3d 173 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 46b-36d, which governs the content of prenuptial agreements entered into after October 1,1995, provides in relevant part that no provision “may be in violation of public policy or of a statute imposing a criminal penalty.”

Jodi Lynn Erpelding v. Timothy John Erpelding, 911 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa 2018). “1982) (en banc); Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-36d(a)(4) (West, Westlaw through 2017 Jan.”

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36d(a)(4) — 2 cases

Jodi Lynn Erpelding v. Timothy John Erpelding, 917 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018). “1982) (en banc); Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-36d(a)(4) (West, Westlaw through 2017 Jan.”

Jodi Lynn Erpelding v. Timothy John Erpelding, 911 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa 2018). “1982) (en banc); Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-36d(a)(4) (West, Westlaw through 2017 Jan.”

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.