Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 608 (2026)

Enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Not enforceable. A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:

A. That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]

B. The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:

(1) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(2) 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

(3) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party. [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]

[PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]

2. Support required. 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.

[PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]

3. Unconscionability. An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement must be decided by the court as a matter of law.

[PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1995, c. 694, §B2 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Est. of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Est. of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008). · cites it 13× “The court ruled that the validity of the agreement was governed solely by the standards contained in the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S. § 608, 3 *816 and not also by the common law presumption of fraud we previously employed in conjunction with the waiver…”

Curtis S. Dow v. Robyn (Dow) Billing, 2020 ME 10 (Me. 2020). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 608(1)(B) (2018). 12 B. Nonmarital Components of the 401(k) Plan [¶23] Dow contends that even if we uphold the court’s interpretation of the premarital agreement, the court erred by failing to consider his testimony, offered at the divorce hearing, that the…”

Hoag v. Dick, 2002 ME 92 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act [¶ 8] Dick contends that the court erred in refusing to apply the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S.A. § 608, 1 because the statute simply codifies general and long settled contract law.”

Helge Riemann v. Kristina A. Toland, 2022 ME 13 (Me. 2022). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 608. Section 608 provides that a premarital agreement is unenforceable when either (1) it was not executed voluntarily or (2) a court determines that it was unconscionable upon execution and that, before execution, one party lacked knowledge or disclosure of…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 608(1) — 2 cases

Est. of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008). “The court ruled that the validity of the agreement was governed solely by the standards contained in the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S. § 608, 3 *816 and not also by the common law presumption of fraud we previously employed in conjunction with the waiver…”

Hoag v. Dick, 2002 ME 92 (Me. 2002). “The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act [¶ 8] Dick contends that the court erred in refusing to apply the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S.A. § 608, 1 because the statute simply codifies general and long settled contract law.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 608(1)(A) — 1 case

Est. of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008). “The court ruled that the validity of the agreement was governed solely by the standards contained in the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S. § 608, 3 *816 and not also by the common law presumption of fraud we previously employed in conjunction with the waiver…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 608(1)(B) — 2 cases

Curtis S. Dow v. Robyn (Dow) Billing, 2020 ME 10 (Me. 2020). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 608(1)(B) (2018). 12 B. Nonmarital Components of the 401(k) Plan [¶23] Dow contends that even if we uphold the court’s interpretation of the premarital agreement, the court erred by failing to consider his testimony, offered at the divorce hearing, that the…”

Est. of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008). “The court ruled that the validity of the agreement was governed solely by the standards contained in the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S. § 608, 3 *816 and not also by the common law presumption of fraud we previously employed in conjunction with the waiver…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 608(3) — 1 case

Est. of Martin, 938 A.2d 812 (Me. 2008). “The court ruled that the validity of the agreement was governed solely by the standards contained in the enforcement provision of the UPAA, 19-A M.R.S. § 608, 3 *816 and not also by the common law presumption of fraud we previously employed in conjunction with the waiver…”

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.