Connecticut: Prenuptial Agreement Requirements

Requirements one by one

Connecticut uses its own Premarital Agreement Act

Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-36a through 46b-36j are the Connecticut
Premarital Agreement Act. The Act applies to agreements executed on or after
October 1, 1995. Older agreements remain governed by the pre-Act case-law
framework.

Connecticut drew from the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act but changed the
uniform enforcement formula. In particular, inadequate disclosure and lack of
a reasonable opportunity to consult independent counsel are separate defenses.

The statute calls for a signed writing

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36c says the agreement must be written and signed by
both parties. No additional consideration is required. Conn. Gen. Stat.
§§ 46b-36e and 46b-36f address effect and later changes; § 46b-36e says the
agreement becomes effective upon marriage unless the agreement itself
provides another rule.

The chapter's published annotation notes Dornemann's holding that the
signature requirement is directory as to the party seeking enforcement when
the party seeking invalidation signed and the proponent performed. The safest
statement of the statutory form remains a writing signed by both prospective
spouses.

No notary or witness is part of the Act's baseline

The Act requires the signed writing but does not add a notary,
acknowledgment, witness, attestation, oath, or recording condition for basic
validity. Separate deeds, trusts, beneficiary designations, and other
instruments used to implement a term can have their own formalities.

Disclosure cannot be waived away

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36g(a)(3) makes lack of fair and reasonable disclosure
an independent route to nonenforcement. Unlike the standard UPAA formula,
Connecticut does not provide an express written-waiver or adequate-knowledge
substitute.

Friezo defines fair and reasonable disclosure by the nature, extent, and
accuracy of the information. It need not be a perfectly exact financial
statement or be attached to the agreement, but it must address property,
financial obligations, and income. A recital that disclosure occurred does
not cure an actual failure to provide it.

Counsel opportunity is mandatory; representation is not

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36g(a)(4) makes the absence of a reasonable opportunity
to consult independent counsel a separate defense. Friezo says the person does
not have to retain or actually consult a lawyer. The required protection is a
real opportunity, with sufficient time before marriage to consult a lawyer
other than the future spouse's lawyer.

There is no fixed seven-day or other statutory countdown. Friezo held on its
facts that a draft delivered one week before the wedding did not establish
the absence of a reasonable opportunity where the party had learned two
months earlier that a prenup would be required.

The statute tests fairness twice

Each § 46b-36g(a) defense stands on its own: involuntary execution,
unconscionability when signed or when enforcement is sought, inadequate
disclosure, or no reasonable counsel opportunity. The court decides
unconscionability as a matter of law.

The enforcement-time language creates a genuine second look. Grabe confirms
that changed circumstances are evaluated in context, but an unexpected event
or disparity alone does not automatically make enforcement unconscionable.

Support waivers have two statutory limits

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36d(a)(4) permits modification or elimination of
spousal support. The term remains subject to the agreement-wide
unconscionability test at execution and enforcement under § 46b-36g(a)(2).

Section 46b-36g(b) adds a targeted public-assistance floor. If the waiver
causes eligibility for a public-assistance program at separation or
dissolution, the court may order enough support to avoid that eligibility.

Child terms remain under judicial control

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36d(c) says a prenup may not adversely affect a child's
right to support. It also makes every care, custody, visitation, or other
child-related provision subject to judicial review and modification.

Subsection 46b-36d(b) separately bars any agreement term that violates public
policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty.

Post-marriage changes require a signed writing

After marriage, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-36f allows amendment or revocation only
through a written agreement signed by the parties. The amendment or revocation
is enforceable without consideration.

The Act does not require notarization, witnesses, or a separate payment for
that change. The same § 46b-36g enforcement defenses apply to an amendment.

What trips people up

Connecticut did not copy the UPAA disclosure escape routes. A signed waiver
or claimed general knowledge does not replace the disclosure requirement in
§ 46b-36g(a)(3).

A counsel waiver is not the statutory test. The person may decline legal
advice, but the other party still must afford a reasonable opportunity to
consult independent counsel.

Unconscionability is tested at two times. The agreement can be challenged
for unconscionability when executed or when enforcement is later sought.

The public-assistance rule is narrow. It authorizes support only to the
extent needed to avoid the eligibility caused by the support term.

Common questions

Does Connecticut require a seven-day review period?

No. The statute requires a reasonable opportunity to consult independent
counsel, not a fixed number of days. Friezo treats timing as fact-specific.

May financial disclosure be waived in writing?

The Act provides no waiver alternative. Failure to provide fair and reasonable
disclosure of property, obligations, and income is itself a statutory defense.

Can a Connecticut prenup waive alimony?

Yes, but the waiver remains subject to unconscionability review at signing and
enforcement and to the public-assistance override in § 46b-36g(b).

Can parents settle future custody in the prenup?

They may record intentions, but the provision remains subject to judicial
review and modification under § 46b-36d(c). Child support cannot be adversely
affected.

Statutes and sources

• Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-36a to 46b-36j. Current official Connecticut
  Premarital Agreement Act text. Official statutes
  (accessed July 28, 2026).
• 2026 Supplement, Chapter 815e. Lists only the 2025 changes to §§ 46b-20a
  and 46b-21a, confirming no supplement change to the Act. Official
  supplement (accessed
  July 28, 2026).
• Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166, 914 A.2d 533 (2007). Defines fair and
  reasonable disclosure and reasonable counsel opportunity. Published
  opinion (accessed July 28,
  2026).
• Grabe v. Hokin, 341 Conn. 360, 267 A.3d 145 (2021). Applies the
  enforcement-time unconscionability review. Published opinion
  (accessed July 28, 2026).
• Connecticut Judicial Branch 2026 guide. Current official research guide
  to the Act and its cases. Official guide
  (accessed July 28, 2026).

Disclaimer

This page is general legal information about state-law prenuptial-agreement
requirements, not legal advice about whether a particular agreement or term
is valid, fair, or enforceable. Courts apply voluntariness, disclosure,
unconscionability, public-policy, and changed-circumstances rules to specific
facts, and child support and custody remain subject to the child's interests
and the court's authority. Execution rules, counsel protections, waiting
periods, and support limits vary sharply by state. Verified against the cited
statutes and cases on the date shown; both prospective spouses should obtain
separate advice from licensed family-law counsel before signing or relying on
an agreement.