(a) 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) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed or when enforcement is sought; or
(3) Before execution of the agreement, such party was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the amount, character and value of property, financial obligations and income of the other party; or
(4) Such party was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with independent counsel.
(b) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates spousal support and such modification or elimination causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public assistance at the time of separation or marital dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to avoid such eligibility.
(c) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.
(P.A. 95-170, S. 6, 11.)
History: P.A. 95-170 effective October 1, 1995, and applicable to premarital agreements executed on or after that date.
Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act endorses, clarifies and codifies McHugh standards and does not require attachment to the agreement of written financial disclosures, signatures of both parties if signed by party seeking to invalidate the contract, and delivery of the agreement to each signing party. 48 CS 502.
Subsec. (a):
Presentation of draft of prenuptial agreement 1 week before wedding is not sufficient to show lack of opportunity of adequate financial disclosure by defendant, where defendant informed plaintiff 2 months before the wedding that defendant wanted a prenuptial agreement; demonstration of reasonable opportunity to consult with legal counsel under section only requires opportunity for consultation, consistent with interpretation of identical statutory language. 281 C. 166.
Prenuptial agreement that disclosed approximate property holdings and other financial obligations but failed to provide sufficient income information was unenforceable under Subsec.; “fair and reasonable disclosure” need not be exact but must at least provide a general approximation of amount, character and value of property, financial obligations and income. 132 CA 609.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case:
Friezo v. Friezo, 914 A.2d 533 (Conn. 2007).
Friezo v. Friezo, 914 A.2d 533 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 58× “Section 46b-36g (a) lists four bases for finding a prenuptial agreement to be unenforceable: (1) voluntariness; (2) unconscionability; (3) failure to provide a fair and reasonable disclosure of property, financial obligations and income; and (4) lack of reasonable opportunity to…”
Hornung v. Hornung, 146 A.3d 912 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 47× “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…”
LaFrance v. Lodmell, 144 A.3d 373 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 19× “Furthermore, construing § 46b-66 (c) to apply to those arbitration agreements entered into after the commencement of a marital dissolution proceeding achieves harmony between § 46b-66 (c) and the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act, specifically, General Statutes § 46b-36g…”
Oldani v. Oldani, 34 A.3d 407 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 7× “” 6 General Statutes § 46b-36g (a). Our Supreme Court has held that a court’s determination whether a prenuptial agreement is unenforceable pursuant to § 46b-36g presents a mixed question of fact and law over which our review is plenary.”
Grabe v. Hokin, 341 Conn. 360 (Conn. 2021).
· cites it 15× “The defendant filed a cross complaint in which he claimed, inter alia, that the agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionable at the time of the disso- lution under General Statutes § 46b-36g (a) (2).1 After a trial to the court, the court concluded that, with the…”
Bedrick v. Bedrick, 17 A.3d 17 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 4× “The statutory scheme provides that a prenuptial agreement is unenforceable when: (1) the challenger did not enter the agreement voluntarily; (2) the agreement was *700 unconscionable when executed or enforced; (3) the challenger did not receive “a fair and reasonable disclosure…”
Crews v. Crews, 989 A.2d 1060 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 46b-36g (a); see Friezo v.”
McKenna v. Delente, 2 A.3d 38 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 4× “The defendant claimed that the document was necessary *153 to demonstrate that the plaintiff had not made a fair disclosure of his finances when the parties entered into the premarital agreement and that the agreement, therefore, was unconscionable under General Statutes §…”
Dornemann v. Dornemann, 850 A.2d 273 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 46b-36g (a) provides in pertinent part: “A premarital agreement or amendment shall not be enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that .”
Tilsen v. Benson, 347 Conn. 758 (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “3d 145 (2021) (considering enforceability of antenuptial agreements under both General Statutes § 46b-36g and McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn.”
Wilkes v. Wilkes, 738 A.2d 758 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 4× “” The plaintiff claims that this “mid-nuptial” agreement should be considered the same as premarital agreements that are protected by General Statutes *320 § 46b-36g with respect to disclosure. Section 46b-36g (a) (3), which is applicable to premarital agreements executed on or…”
Schoenborn v. Schoenborn, 74 A.3d 482 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “, 168 ; see also General Statutes § 46b-36g. That inquiry is conducted pursuant to the plenary standard of review.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36g(a) — 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.