Prenuptial Agreement Requirements in Kentucky

At a glance

Requirements one by one

Kentucky uses statutes plus a case-law enforcement test

Kentucky has not enacted a comprehensive Uniform Premarital Agreement Act or Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act. KRS 371.010(5) supplies the writing rule, KRS 403.190(2)(d) recognizes property excluded by a valid agreement, and Gentry v. Gentry supplies the controlling three-part test.

Gentry overruled the older rule that treated divorce-planning terms as against public policy. A valid agreement may define the prospective spouses' property rights at death or divorce according to its actual terms.

The Statute of Frauds requires a signed writing

KRS 371.010(5) covers an agreement made in consideration of marriage. The agreement, memorandum, or note must be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. A mutually enforceable prenup should therefore carry both prospective spouses' signatures.

The statute says the writing does not have to recite the consideration. The marriage is the contemplated consideration, while the agreement's own terms identify whether it governs death, divorce, or both.

Kentucky does not add a universal notary or witness step

The governing writing statute and the Gentry line do not prescribe a notary, acknowledgment, witness, oath, or general recording requirement for basic enforcement between the parties. Those steps may help prove authenticity, and separate instruments used to transfer or record particular property can have their own formalities, but they are not the universal prenup form in KRS 371.010.

Full disclosure is mandatory in the case-law test

Edwardson requires disclosure free from material omission or misrepresentation before the parties surrender substantial rights. Kentucky has not enacted a UPAA provision allowing a prospective spouse to replace that duty with a signed waiver of further disclosure.

Lawson places the burden on the party relying on the agreement to prove full disclosure. The disclosure must apprise the other prospective spouse of the extent and nature of the estate and the value of the rights being surrendered.

Counsel and timing are not statutory checkboxes

Kentucky's governing statutes and controlling cases set no fixed final-draft review period, wedding countdown, counsel advisement, or separate counsel-waiver form. The real questions remain whether the agreement was voluntary and free from fraud, duress, mistake, material misrepresentation, and nondisclosure.

The absence of a fixed rule does not remove Gentry's fact-specific fraud, duress, voluntariness, and material-nondisclosure review.

Gentry requires review at execution and enforcement

Gentry asks three questions. First, was the agreement obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, material misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure? Second, was it unconscionable when executed? Third, have circumstances changed enough that later enforcement would be unfair and unreasonable?

That third question is a real second look. Gentry says an antenuptial agreement will not be enforced when later facts and circumstances make enforcement unconscionable.

A maintenance waiver remains reviewable

Edwardson permits a prenup to address property and maintenance, but it also authorizes a court to modify an unconscionable agreement while otherwise preserving it as nearly as possible. KRS 403.200 supplies the ordinary maintenance framework that applies when a valid agreement does not displace it.

Lane applied the second look to a complete maintenance waiver. After a nine-and-a-half-year marriage, two children, and a major change in the spouses' economic positions, the Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's limited maintenance award because strict enforcement of the waiver was unconscionable in application.

Child support and custody remain with the court

Edwardson states directly that child support, custody, and visitation are not subject to an antenuptial agreement. KRS 403.211 makes the child-support guidelines the rebuttable starting point and requires court findings for a deviation. A parental agreement cannot support a deviation while covered public assistance is being paid.

KRS 403.270 requires the court to decide custody from the child's best interests. A prenup may record the couple's present expectations, but it cannot replace those later statutory decisions.

Kentucky has no prenup-specific change formula

Kentucky has not enacted a UPAA rule saying that a prenup may be amended or revoked after marriage through a signed writing enforceable without consideration. The effect of a post-marriage change therefore requires separate contract and family-law analysis, including the original agreement's own amendment clause.

What trips people up

Kentucky is not a UPAA state. Its rules come from a Statute of Frauds, property statute, and published appellate decisions rather than a codified uniform-act checklist.

The proponent carries the disclosure burden. Lawson does not make the challenger prove that disclosure was missing; the party relying on the prenup must establish the required disclosure.

A valid agreement can still lose a term later. Lane did not invalidate the entire prenup. It upheld the trial court's authority to refuse strict enforcement of the maintenance waiver after circumstances changed.

A notary cannot cure nondisclosure or duress. Notarization may help prove signatures, but the Gentry and Edwardson enforcement limits remain.

Common questions

Can a Kentucky prenup cover property acquired during marriage?

Yes. KRS 403.190(2)(d) excludes property covered by a valid agreement from the marital-property definition, and Gentry enforced an agreement governing property acquired before and during the marriage according to its terms.

Can the same agreement govern both divorce and death?

Yes, if its operative language clearly reaches both events. Gentry enforced the agreement as written because its property releases applied at termination by death or divorce; a purpose recital could not narrow the unambiguous operative terms. The current statutory baseline includes the surviving-spouse interests in KRS 392.020, which the section itself recognizes may be barred, forfeited, or relinquished.

Who must prove that financial disclosure was adequate?

The party relying on the prenup. Lawson places the burden of proving full disclosure of assets on the agreement's proponent.

Can a court preserve the rest after rejecting one term?

Potentially. Edwardson says a court finding unconscionability may modify the agreement to satisfy the required standard while otherwise giving effect to it as nearly as possible, and Lane applied that authority to the maintenance term.

Statutes and sources

• KRS 371.010(5). Current official writing and signature rule for an agreement made in consideration of marriage. Official statute (accessed July 28, 2026).
• KRS 392.020(1). Current official surviving-spouse property interests, including the statute's barred, forfeited, or relinquished boundary. Official statute (accessed July 28, 2026).
• KRS 403.190(2)(d) and 403.200. Current official valid-agreement property exclusion and ordinary maintenance framework. Property and maintenance (accessed July 28, 2026).
• KRS 403.211 and 403.270. Current official child-support guideline and custody best-interests rules. Child support and custody (accessed July 28, 2026).
• Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990). Property enforceability and the controlling three-part execution/enforcement test. Opinion (accessed July 28, 2026).
• Edwardson v. Edwardson, 798 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1990). Full disclosure, maintenance, modification, and child-matter boundaries. Opinion (accessed July 28, 2026).
• Lawson v. Loid, 896 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1995). Disclosure burden and required knowledge of the estate and surrendered rights. Opinion (accessed July 28, 2026).
• Lane v. Lane, 202 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2006). Enforcement-time review and modification of an unconscionable maintenance waiver. Opinion (accessed July 28, 2026).