Va. Code » Title 20. Domestic Relations » Chapter 8. Premarital Agreement Act
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 20-155 (2026)

Marital agreements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Married persons may enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of settling the rights and obligations of either or both of them, to the same extent, with the same effect, and subject to the same conditions, as provided in §§ 20-147 through 20-154 for agreements between prospective spouses, except that such marital agreements shall become effective immediately upon their execution. If the terms of such agreement are (i) contained in a court order endorsed by counsel or the parties or (ii) recorded and transcribed by a court reporter and affirmed by the parties on the record personally, the agreement is not required to be in writing and is considered to be executed. A reconciliation of the parties after the signing of a separation or property settlement agreement shall abrogate such agreement unless otherwise expressly set forth in the agreement.

1987, c. 41; 1998, c. 638; 2003, cc. 662, 669.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Shenk v. Shenk, 571 S.E.2d 896 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shenk v. Shenk, 571 S.E.2d 896 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 26× “2d 407 , *170 410 (1987); Code § 20-155). As subsection (A)(3)(d) does not apply to the facts of this case, the issue here is whether the parties had a valid express agreement regarding the businesses.”
Gaffney v. Gaffney, 613 S.E.2d 471 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 36× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ purported settlement agreement, the terms of which the trial court incorporated into the final decree of divorce, was a valid and binding marital agreement under Code § 20-155. Because this is a question of law…”
McDavid v. McDavid, 451 S.E.2d 713 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 12× “2d at 410 ; Code § 20-155 (marital provision of the Premarital Agreement Act), or as provided in Code § 20-107.”
Flanary v. Milton, 556 S.E.2d 767 (Va. 2002). · cites it 14× “Code § 20-155 provides that: Married persons may enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of settling the rights and obligations of either or both of them, to the same extent, with the same effect, and subject to the same conditions, as provided in §§ 20-147 through…”
Irwin v. Irwin, 623 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “The court concluded that husband was not liable to wife for the difference between the pendente lite spousal support he actually paid and an amount equal to one-half of the pension amount for the months of May, June, July, August and September. Wife appeals this decision.”
Black v. Edwards, 445 S.E.2d 107 (Va. 1994). · cites it 12× “Finally, the defendants argue that the contract cannot be enforced because it was an oral postnuptial agreement which was not in writing, as required by Code §§ 20-155 and -149. Code § 20-155 provides: *94 Married persons may enter into agreements with each other for the purpose…”
Robinson v. Robinson, 648 S.E.2d 314 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Husband contends that the trial court had no authority to overrule the parties’ “comprehensive” temporary support agreement by awarding retroactive support not provided for within the terms of their agreement.”
Plunkett v. Plunkett, 624 S.E.2d 39 (Va. 2006). · cites it 2× “Code § 20-155. The parties may contract with respect to "the making of a will.”
Devney v. Devney, 886 N.W.2d 61 (Neb. 2016). “102 (West 2006); Va. Code Ann. § 20-155 (2008); Wis. Stat.”
Stephen L. Bryant v. Kerren B. McDougal, 636 S.E.2d 897 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 13× “ANALYSIS Husband argues that the July 21, 2005 oral property settlement agreement was invalid under Code § 20-155 for lack of mutual assent because an “agreement to sign a subsequent, written agreement is not tantamount to an affirmation that the terms recited on the record are…”
Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Code § 20-151(B) *92 (applied to post-marital/separation agreements through Code § 20-155). 4 To determine whether an agreement is unconscionable, a court must examine the “adequacy of price” or “quality of value.”
Rogers v. Rogers, 656 S.E.2d 436 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 471, 477 (2005) (quoting Code § 20-155). 5 . The BAPCPA applies to cases commenced on or after October 17, 2005.”
Show all 75 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-155(B) — 2 cases
Shahla Rahnema v. Mansur Rahnema (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
Mansur Rahnema v. Shala Rahnema (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-155(h) — 1 case
Gaffney v. Gaffney, 613 S.E.2d 471 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ purported settlement agreement, the terms of which the trial court incorporated into the final decree of divorce, was a valid and binding marital agreement under Code § 20-155. Because this is a question of law…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-155(i) — 1 case
Gaffney v. Gaffney, 613 S.E.2d 471 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ purported settlement agreement, the terms of which the trial court incorporated into the final decree of divorce, was a valid and binding marital agreement under Code § 20-155. Because this is a question of law…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-155(ii) — 3 cases
Gaffney v. Gaffney, 613 S.E.2d 471 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the parties’ purported settlement agreement, the terms of which the trial court incorporated into the final decree of divorce, was a valid and binding marital agreement under Code § 20-155. Because this is a question of law…”
Stephen L. Bryant v. Kerren B. McDougal, 636 S.E.2d 897 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “ANALYSIS Husband argues that the July 21, 2005 oral property settlement agreement was invalid under Code § 20-155 for lack of mutual assent because an “agreement to sign a subsequent, written agreement is not tantamount to an affirmation that the terms recited on the record are…”
Wayne F. Moore v. Ruth Doris Moore (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
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.