108.725 Party
may prove agreement unenforceable; when court may require support;
determination of unconscionability.
(1) 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
(b) The agreement
was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement,
that party:
(A) Was not
provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial
obligations of the other party;
(B) 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) Did not have,
or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or
financial obligations of the other party.
(2) 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 or medical 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.
(3) An issue of
whether a premarital agreement is unconscionable shall be decided by the court
as a matter of law. [1987 c.715 §6; 2013 c.688 §12]
Note: See note under 108.700.
Notes of Decisions
In the Matter of Rudder & Rudder, 217 P.3d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “The trial court ruled that the premarital agreement was unenforceable under ORS 108.725, see 230 Or App at 445, and divided the parties’ property and awarded spousal support without regard to its terms.”
Matter of Marriage of Proctor, 229 P.3d 635 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “]” ORS 108.725(1) provides that a premarital agreement is unenforceable in certain circumstances; impliedly, a premarital agreement is enforceable absent those circumstances.”
In re the Marriage of Porter, 381 P.3d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “We write only to address husband’s contention related to the enforceability of the agreement and conclude that the trial court correctly ruled that the agreement is not enforceable, because wife did not enter into it voluntarily, as required by ORS 108.725 and our case law…”
In Re the Marriage of Grossman, 82 P.3d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “First, ORS 108.725 provides a particular legislative framework for the enforcement of premarital agreements.”
Day v. Vitus, 792 P.2d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“725, enacted after the Kosik decision, the challenger of a premarital agreement must prove that he or she did not receive a fair and reasonable disclosure of the other spouse’s property, did not waive the right to that disclosure and did not have or could not have had adequate…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.725(1) — 3 cases
Matter of Marriage of Proctor, 229 P.3d 635 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“]” ORS 108.725(1) provides that a premarital agreement is unenforceable in certain circumstances; impliedly, a premarital agreement is enforceable absent those circumstances.”
In the Matter of Rudder & Rudder, 217 P.3d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The trial court ruled that the premarital agreement was unenforceable under ORS 108.725, see 230 Or App at 445, and divided the parties’ property and awarded spousal support without regard to its terms.”
In Re the Marriage of Grossman, 82 P.3d 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“First, ORS 108.725 provides a particular legislative framework for the enforcement of premarital agreements.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.725(1)(a) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Porter, 381 P.3d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We write only to address husband’s contention related to the enforceability of the agreement and conclude that the trial court correctly ruled that the agreement is not enforceable, because wife did not enter into it voluntarily, as required by ORS 108.725 and our case law…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.725(l)(a) — 2 cases
In the Matter of Rudder & Rudder, 217 P.3d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The trial court ruled that the premarital agreement was unenforceable under ORS 108.725, see 230 Or App at 445, and divided the parties’ property and awarded spousal support without regard to its terms.”
In re the Marriage of Porter, 381 P.3d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We write only to address husband’s contention related to the enforceability of the agreement and conclude that the trial court correctly ruled that the agreement is not enforceable, because wife did not enter into it voluntarily, as required by ORS 108.725 and our case law…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.725(l)(b) — 1 case
In the Matter of Rudder & Rudder, 217 P.3d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The trial court ruled that the premarital agreement was unenforceable under ORS 108.725, see 230 Or App at 445, and divided the parties’ property and awarded spousal support without regard to its terms.”
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.