Prenuptial Agreement Requirements in Massachusetts

At a glance

Requirements one by one

Massachusetts uses narrow statutes plus case law

Massachusetts has no comprehensive Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. General Laws c. 209, § 25 authorizes a written pre-marriage property contract, and the Statute of Frauds in c. 259, § 1 supplies the signature rule. DeMatteo v. DeMatteo supplies the controlling execution and enforcement framework for a prenup addressing divorce rights.

Writing, signature, and marriage are distinct steps

Under c. 209, § 25, the parties may make a written property contract before marriage, and its property limitations take effect when the marriage occurs. General Laws c. 259, § 1 treats the agreement as made upon consideration of marriage and requires a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. A mutually enforceable agreement therefore needs each party's signature.

Recording protects the statutory property settlement against outsiders

The statutes state no notary or witness requirement for basic enforcement between the parties. But c. 209, § 26 requires a sufficiently clear property schedule and recording before marriage or within 90 days afterward. Without that recording, the contract is void except between the parties and their heirs and personal representatives. The contract also must be recorded in every registry district containing land to which it relates.

Disclosure and waiver are part of one execution-time inquiry

DeMatteo requires a fair and reasonable provision at execution, financial information sufficient for the other party to make an informed decision or actual or constructive independent knowledge of the other's worth, and a stated waiver of marital rights. This is not a UPAA checklist with an express written waiver of further disclosure.

Full and fair disclosure need not assign an exact value to every asset. It must be sufficient for an informed decision about whether the agreement should go forward.

Counsel and review time support a meaningful choice

No statute requires separate counsel or fixes a minimum pre-wedding review period. DeMatteo instead makes counsel, adequate review time, understanding of the agreement, and understanding of the rights being surrendered factors in whether the waiver was meaningful.

Timing is fact-specific. Austin v. Austin enforced an agreement signed two days before marriage where both parties had counsel and the agreement otherwise passed the Massachusetts test. That result is not a general two-day safe harbor.

DeMatteo separates validity from the second look

At execution, the court asks whether the agreement was fair and reasonable, whether disclosure or sufficient knowledge existed, and whether the contesting party made a meaningful stated waiver. An agreement can be one-sided without being invalid, but it cannot essentially strip the contesting party of all marital interests.

If the agreement was valid when made, the court takes a second look at divorce. DeMatteo calls this an enforcement-time conscionability inquiry designed to preserve the agreement's intended vitality, not to recalculate the bargain under the ordinary divorce-property statute.

Alimony may be waived, subject to the second look

Austin confirms that an alimony waiver is not automatically against public policy. The court nevertheless may refuse enforcement when circumstances that arose during the marriage would leave the contesting spouse without sufficient property, maintenance, or appropriate employment for support. DeMatteo also identifies likely public-charge status as an example.

Child support and custody remain court matters

General Laws c. 208, § 28 requires the court to apply the child-support guidelines when approving an agreement and permits later modification despite an agreement with independent legal significance. Under c. 208, § 31, child welfare controls custody, and the court may reject the parents' custody agreement when it is not in the child's best interests.

A post-marriage change enters the marital-agreement lane

Massachusetts has no prenup-specific amendment or revocation statute. A change made after marriage alters existing marital rights and therefore must satisfy Ansin v. Craven-Ansin's marital-agreement safeguards: opportunity for separate counsel, no fraud or coercion, full asset disclosure, an explicit written waiver, and fair and reasonable terms at execution and divorce.

What trips people up

• The 90-day recording rule has a limited consequence. Missing it does not erase the contract between the parties, but it defeats broader statutory effect under c. 209, § 26.
• Execution fairness and divorce-time conscionability are different tests. The first decides validity; the second asks whether a valid agreement remains enforceable after circumstances arising during marriage.
• There is no fixed wedding countdown. Counsel and time matter to meaningful waiver, but Massachusetts has not enacted a set number of review days.

Common questions

Does a Massachusetts prenup need notarization?

The cited statutes and DeMatteo framework do not make notarization a basic validity condition. Recording offices and separate real-property instruments may impose their own acknowledgment requirements.

Is unequal treatment enough to invalidate the agreement?

No. DeMatteo says many valid agreements may be one-sided. The execution-time line is crossed when the agreement essentially strips the contesting party of substantially all marital interests, considered with disclosure, waiver, and the surrounding process.

Can the parents make a custody plan in the prenup?

They may express a plan, but it does not bind the court. General Laws c. 208, § 31 permits the court to reject a custody agreement that is not in the child's best interests.

Statutes and sources

• G.L. c. 209, §§ 25-26 — written pre-marriage property contracts, marriage-time effect, property schedule, and recording consequences. Official § 25 and official § 26 (accessed 2026-07-27).
• G.L. c. 259, § 1 — writing and signature by the party to be charged. Official General Court text (accessed 2026-07-27).
• DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002), and Austin v. Austin, 445 Mass. 601 (2005) — execution validity, meaningful waiver, second-look conscionability, and alimony waivers. DeMatteo and Austin (accessed 2026-07-27).
• G.L. c. 208, §§ 28 and 31 — child-support guidelines and modification, child welfare, custody agreements, and best interests. Official § 28 and official § 31 (accessed 2026-07-27).
• Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, 457 Mass. 283 (2010) — safeguards for a post-marriage marital agreement. Opinion (accessed 2026-07-27).