23-2407.
Same; enforceability.
(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; or
(2) the agreement was unconscionable when such agreement was executed and, before execution of the agreement, all of the following applied to that party:
(A) Such party was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;
(B) such 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; and
(C) such party did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.
(b) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates spousal support and that 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 that eligibility.
(c) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.
History:
L. 1988, ch. 204, § 7; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
In re the Marriage of Traster, 291 P.3d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 23-2407(a). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Kansas statutory scheme controlling dissolution of marriage governs “separation agreements” executed by spouses who are contemplating divorce and have no intention of staying married.”
In re Marriage of O'Malley (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 13× “Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-2407, Jalyn needs to show either (1) that she did not execute the Agreement voluntarily or (2) that the Agreement was unconscionable, and the financial disclosure was defective.”
K.S.A. § 23-2407(a): 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Traster, 291 P.3d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
“See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 23-2407(a). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Kansas statutory scheme controlling dissolution of marriage governs “separation agreements” executed by spouses who are contemplating divorce and have no intention of staying married.”
In re Marriage of O'Malley (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-2407, Jalyn needs to show either (1) that she did not execute the Agreement voluntarily or (2) that the Agreement was unconscionable, and the financial disclosure was defective.”
K.S.A. § 23-2407(a)(1): 1 case
In re Marriage of O'Malley (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-2407, Jalyn needs to show either (1) that she did not execute the Agreement voluntarily or (2) that the Agreement was unconscionable, and the financial disclosure was defective.”
K.S.A. § 23-2407(a)(2): 1 case
In re Marriage of O'Malley (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-2407, Jalyn needs to show either (1) that she did not execute the Agreement voluntarily or (2) that the Agreement was unconscionable, and the financial disclosure was defective.”
K.S.A. § 23-2407(a)(2)(A): 1 case
In re Marriage of O'Malley (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-2407, Jalyn needs to show either (1) that she did not execute the Agreement voluntarily or (2) that the Agreement was unconscionable, and the financial disclosure was defective.”
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.