(a) Contracts between husband and wife not inconsistent with public policy are valid, and any persons of full age about to be married and married persons may, with or without a valuable consideration, release and quitclaim rights they might respectively acquire or may have acquired by marriage in the property of each other. These releases may be pleaded in bar of any action or proceeding for the recovery of the rights and estate released. No contract or release between husband and wife made during their marriage affects either of the following, unless it is in writing and is acknowledged by both parties before a certifying officer:
(1) Either spouse's real property.
(2) Income from either spouse's real property accruing more than three years after the execution of the contract or release.
(a1) A contract between a husband and wife made, with or without a valuable consideration, during a period of separation to waive, release, or establish rights and obligations to postseparation support, alimony, or spousal support is valid and not inconsistent with public policy. A provision waiving, releasing, or establishing rights and obligations to postseparation support, alimony, or spousal support remains valid following a period of reconciliation and subsequent separation, if the contract satisfies all of the following requirements:
(1) The contract is in writing.
(2) The provision waiving the rights or obligations is clearly stated in the contract.
(3) The contract was acknowledged by both parties before a certifying officer.
A release made pursuant to this subsection may be pleaded in bar of any action or proceeding for the recovery of the rights released.
(b) A certifying officer under this section shall be a notary public, or a justice, judge, magistrate, clerk, assistant clerk, or deputy clerk of the General Court of Justice, or the equivalent or corresponding officers of the state, territory, or foreign country where the acknowledgment is made. The officer shall not be a party to the contract.
(c) This section does not apply to any judgment of the superior court or other State court of competent jurisdiction that, by reason of its being consented to by a husband and wife, or their attorneys, may be construed to constitute a contract or release between the husband and wife. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 28; Code, s. 1836; Rev., s. 2108; C.S., s. 2516; 1959, c. 879, s. 12; 1965, c. 878, s. 1; 1977, c. 375, s. 2; 2013-140, s. 1; 2025-25, s. 1(d).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
96
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case:
Harllee v. Harllee, 565 S.E.2d 678 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
Harllee v. Harllee, 565 S.E.2d 678 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 19× “by marriage in the property of each other; and such releases may be pleaded in bar of any action or proceeding for the recovery of the rights and estate so released.”
State v. Stroud, 557 S.E.2d 544 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 52-10 (1999) allows contracts between a husband and wife without restriction, other than being consistent with public policy.”
Williams v. Williams, 463 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 42× “1 *818 (1991), but rather a marital contract as provided in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 52-10 (1991) which by its terms was void as against public policy.”
Howell v. Landry, 386 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 12× “N.C.G.S. § 52-10 provides in pertinent part that: No contract or release between husband and wife made during their coverture shall be valid to affect or change any part of the real estate of either spouse, or the accruing income thereof for a longer time than three years next…”
Sfreddo v. Hicks, 831 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 11× “Moore, originally filed a declaratory judgment action on 18 June 1987 to have a separation agreement entered into with defendant-wife, Betty Evans Moore, declared null and void on the grounds that the agreement had not been properly acknowledged in violation of the requirements…”
Hagler v. Hagler, 354 S.E.2d 228 (N.C. 1987).
· cites it 6× “These agreements are favored in this state, as they serve the salutary purpose of enabling marital partners to come to a mutually acceptable settlement of their financial affairs.”
Small v. Small, 379 S.E.2d 273 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 11× “Validity of Release of Property Rights Executed Prior to Adoption of Equitable Distribution Act Effective 1 October 1981, our Legislature enacted the Equitable Distribution Act (the “Act”) which provides in part that “before, during or after marriage the parties may by written…”
Buffington v. Buffington, 317 S.E.2d 97 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 8× “Antenuptial agreements regulating the parties’ property rights during marriage, on the *487 other hand, have long been permitted in our state, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10 (a) (1983 Cum. Supp.”
Raymond v. Raymond, 811 S.E.2d 168 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1 . Such a certifying officer may include a notary public.”
Matter of Est. of Tucci, 380 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 10× “on, a couple may elect before or after marriage to forego all such spousal property rights pursuant to a complete property settlement; for example, [i]t is well-settled in this jurisdiction that a man and woman contemplating marriage may enter into a valid contract with respect…”
Adams v. Adams, 374 S.E.2d 450 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 10× “6(b) does not run afoul of the requirement in Section 52-10(a) that all contracts between spouses must "[not] be inconsistent with public policy.”
Burgin v. Owen, 640 S.E.2d 427 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “4, or G.S. 52-10. N.C.G.S. § 39-13.6(a) (2005) (emphasis added).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10(a) — 11 cases
Matter of Est. of Tucci, 380 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
“on, a couple may elect before or after marriage to forego all such spousal property rights pursuant to a complete property settlement; for example, [i]t is well-settled in this jurisdiction that a man and woman contemplating marriage may enter into a valid contract with respect…”
Adams v. Adams, 374 S.E.2d 450 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
“6(b) does not run afoul of the requirement in Section 52-10(a) that all contracts between spouses must "[not] be inconsistent with public policy.”
Williams v. Williams, 463 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
“1 *818 (1991), but rather a marital contract as provided in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 52-10 (1991) which by its terms was void as against public policy.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10(b) — 21 cases
Small v. Small, 379 S.E.2d 273 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
“Validity of Release of Property Rights Executed Prior to Adoption of Equitable Distribution Act Effective 1 October 1981, our Legislature enacted the Equitable Distribution Act (the “Act”) which provides in part that “before, during or after marriage the parties may by written…”
Sfreddo v. Hicks, 831 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
“Moore, originally filed a declaratory judgment action on 18 June 1987 to have a separation agreement entered into with defendant-wife, Betty Evans Moore, declared null and void on the grounds that the agreement had not been properly acknowledged in violation of the requirements…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10(c) — 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.