Georgia: Prenuptial Agreement Requirements

Requirements one by one

Georgia uses a state-specific statute plus the Scherer test

O.C.G.A. § 19-3-60 defines an antenuptial agreement as a pre-marriage
contract that determines property rights or plans a future resolution of such
issues as year's support, spousal support, and equitable property division.
Georgia has not adopted the UPAA. Article 3 supplies the form and enforcement
structure, while Scherer and its later cases supply the fairness test.

The agreement must be written and signed by both parties

Section 19-3-62 states that an antenuptial agreement “shall be in writing” and
signed by both people who agree to be bound. Section 19-3-60 makes marriage
valuable consideration. The article does not separately state that the agreement
becomes effective upon marriage, but its definition requires the contract to be
entered before marriage.

Two witnesses are mandatory, and one must be the notary

Current § 19-3-62 requires attestation by at least two witnesses, one of
whom must be a notary public. The notary counts as one of the two; the statute
does not say two witnesses plus a third notarial officer.

The current article contains no recording requirement for basic validity. Its
liberal-construction sentence protects the parties' intended bargain from a mere
lack of technical expression, but it does not erase the express writing,
signature, and attestation requirements.

Full and fair financial disclosure is an affirmative duty

Dodson says Scherer absolutely requires “full and fair disclosure.” Blige
describes the duty as covering the parties' financial condition and treats
enforcement without that disclosure as contrary to Georgia public policy.
Material assets, income, and liabilities therefore matter; merely listing an
asset without enough information about its value may be inadequate.

Georgia has no UPAA-style written disclosure-waiver substitute. Actual,
substantial familiarity with the other person's finances can support a finding
of adequate disclosure on the facts, but it is not a general duty to investigate
undisclosed property.

Counsel is an opportunity requirement, not a fixed waiting period

Blige requires the enforcement proponent to show that the other party entered
freely and voluntarily, understood the terms, and had been offered an
opportunity to consult independent counsel. The cases do not make actual
representation an across-the-board formality, and current Article 3 states no
minimum number of review days or days before the wedding.

Timing can still matter to the fact-specific questions of voluntariness, duress,
and understanding. The absence of a statutory clock should not be read as a
safe last-minute-signing rule.

Scherer supplies three enforceability questions

As restated in Dodson, the court asks: whether the agreement resulted from
fraud, duress, mistake, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure; whether
the agreement is unconscionable; and whether changed facts and circumstances
make enforcement unfair and unreasonable. The trial court applies those
questions in equity to the particular agreement and evidence.

A valid support waiver can be enforced

Section 19-3-60 expressly includes spousal support within the subjects an
antenuptial agreement may resolve. Vakharwala enforced an agreement barring
either party from seeking any form of alimony or support. Georgia's current
article adds no separate support-only counsel rule or public-assistance override;
the waiver remains subject to the general Scherer enforceability test.

Child support and custody remain outside conclusive private control

Swanson states that child support belongs to the child and cannot be waived by
the parents. For custody, current § 19-9-3 places the decision with the judge,
who must determine what serves the child's best interests, welfare, and
happiness.

Article 3 adds another public-interest limit: under § 19-3-60(b), a marriage
contract cannot incapacitate a spouse from paying existing just debts.

What trips people up

• Older witness cases apply superseded statutory text. The current
  § 19-3-62 form rule was substituted by the 2018 amendment, effective July 1,
  2018. Older decisions distinguishing divorce-focused agreements from
  marriage contracts for witness purposes do not state the current across-the-
  board antenuptial formality.
• A notary block alone is not enough. The notary is one required witness;
  at least one additional attesting witness is still necessary.
• Article 3 supplies no amendment form. Sections 19-3-60 through 19-3-66
  contain no express post-marriage amendment or revocation procedure. A clause
  in a private form should not be labeled a Georgia statutory change method.
  The remaining O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-63 through 19-3-66 address marriage-contract
  form, property conveyances, trust protection, and enforcement instead.

Common questions

Can a person under 18 enter a Georgia antenuptial agreement?

O.C.G.A. § 19-3-61 says minority alone does not invalidate the agreement if the
person is of lawful age to contract marriage.

Does awkward drafting automatically invalidate the agreement?

Not by itself. Section 19-3-62 directs liberal construction to carry out the
parties' intention and says a lack of form or technical expression does not
invalidate the agreement. The mandatory execution steps still must be met.

Who may enforce the agreement after a spouse dies?

Section 19-3-66 permits enforcement in equity by the spouses and, after a
spouse's death, by offspring of the marriage and their heirs, subject to the
cross-referenced jurisdiction and estate provisions.

Statutes and sources

• O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-60 through 19-3-66 — definition, marriage as
  consideration, lawful-age rule, writing, signatures, witnesses, notary,
  construction, and enforcement. Official-code public-access
  release
  (accessed 2026-07-27).
• Dodson v. Dodson, 298 Ga. 117 (2015) — Scherer test and full-and-fair-
  disclosure requirement. Georgia Supreme Court
  opinion (accessed
  2026-07-27).
• Blige v. Blige, 283 Ga. 65 (2008) — affirmative disclosure duty,
  voluntariness, understanding, and opportunity for independent counsel.
  Georgia Supreme Court opinion
  (accessed 2026-07-27).
• Vakharwala v. Vakharwala, 301 Ga. 251 (2017) — enforcement of an alimony
  and support waiver. Georgia Supreme Court
  opinion (accessed
  2026-07-27).
• Swanson v. Swanson, 276 Ga. 566 (2003) — child-support right and
  nonwaiver. Georgia Supreme Court
  opinion (accessed
  2026-07-27).
• O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(a)(1) — judicial custody decision and the child's best
  interests. Official-code public-access
  release
  (accessed 2026-07-27).