Prenuptial Agreement Requirements in Connecticut

At a glance

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.