New Jersey: Prenuptial Agreement Requirements

Requirements one by one

New Jersey uses a modified Uniform Act

N.J.S.A. 37:2-31 names the statute the Uniform Premarital and Pre-Civil Union
Agreement Act. It is New Jersey's modified version of the UPAA. The Act covers
an agreement between prospective spouses made in contemplation of marriage and
intended to become effective upon marriage.

Both signatures and an attached asset statement are mandatory

Section 37:2-33 requires three linked items: a writing, a statement of assets
annexed to that writing, and both parties' signatures. The agreement is
enforceable without consideration. Section 37:2-36 makes marriage, rather than
the signing date, the event that activates it.

The attached-statement rule is a distinctive execution formality. It should
not be collapsed into the later enforceability inquiry about full and fair
disclosure of earnings, property, and financial obligations.

The Act does not require notarization or witnesses

The complete form rule in § 37:2-33 does not require a notary,
acknowledgment, witness, attestation, oath, or recording. The attached asset
statement is required; a notary block is not. Separate recording rules may
apply to a later instrument transferring real property, but that does not make
recording a universal prenup-validity condition.

Disclosure has both an attachment rule and enforcement standards

The agreement must have a statement of assets attached. In an enforcement
challenge, § 37:2-38(c) asks whether the resisting party received full and fair
disclosure of the other party's earnings, property, and financial obligations;
expressly waived further disclosure in writing; and had or reasonably could
have had adequate knowledge.

The statute therefore permits a written waiver of disclosure beyond what was
provided. It does not permit the parties to ignore § 37:2-33's separate command
that an asset statement be annexed to the agreement.

Counsel may be replaced only by an express written waiver

Under § 37:2-38(c)(4), the party must have consulted independent counsel or
voluntarily and expressly waived in writing the opportunity to do so. An oral
declination is not the statutory substitute.

The Act specifies no final-draft review period and no minimum number of days
before the wedding. Last-minute timing can still be evidence bearing on
involuntary execution; the absence of a fixed clock does not resolve that
fact-specific issue.

The 2013 amendment creates two fairness lanes

For an agreement entered or voluntarily revised on or after June 27, 2013,
the challenger must prove a statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence.
The grounds are involuntary execution or unconscionability when the agreement
was executed under § 37:2-38(c)'s disclosure, knowledge, and counsel-or-written-
waiver circumstances. The court decides unconscionability as a matter of law.

P.L.2013, c.72 deleted the former rule allowing a challenge because the
agreement was unconscionable when enforcement was sought. But the Legislature
made that change prospective. An agreement made before June 27, 2013 remains
under the earlier law unless the parties voluntarily revise it on or after that
date under § 37:2-37.

Spousal support may be modified or eliminated

Section 37:2-34(d) authorizes modification or elimination of spousal support.
For agreements in the post-2013 lane, the Act no longer contains its former
general enforcement-time unconscionability/public-charge second look. The
support term remains subject to the applicable execution-time § 37:2-38 test
and the Act's rule against provisions violating public policy.

That date distinction matters. A form that still describes the deleted
enforcement-time rule as universally current gives the wrong test for a new
agreement.

Child support and custody stay under judicial safeguards

Section 37:2-35 directly bars a premarital agreement from adversely affecting
a child's right to support. Section 37:2-34(h) separately permits personal-
rights terms only when they do not violate public policy.

For custody, Sacharow states that the sole benchmark in a parental custody
contest is the child's best interests. A private premarital term therefore does
not conclusively dictate custody or parenting arrangements.

A post-marriage change needs a signed writing

Under § 37:2-37, amendment or revocation after marriage is possible only by a
written agreement signed by the parties. The change or revocation needs no
consideration. The section does not add a notary, witness, acknowledgment, or
new attached asset statement to that change document.

Voluntarily revising an older agreement on or after June 27, 2013 also moves
the revised agreement into the 2013 Act's execution-time fairness lane.

What trips people up

• The asset statement is a formality, not merely good evidence. Section
  37:2-33 says it must be annexed to the signed writing.
• Counsel and disclosure have written-waiver mechanics. A casual oral
  acknowledgment does not match § 37:2-38(c).
• The fairness date depends on the agreement's date. The 2013 amendment
  did not retroactively erase enforcement-time review for untouched older
  agreements.
• A notary is not in the Act's execution rule. Adding a notary block to a
  form does not make acknowledgment a statutory condition for the original or
  a later amendment.

Common questions

Does New Jersey require a waiting period before signing?

No fixed number of days appears in the Act. The agreement still must be
voluntary, and the party must receive the required disclosure and independent
counsel or execute the required written counsel waiver.

Can the parties waive all financial disclosure?

Not cleanly. Section 37:2-38 recognizes an express written waiver of disclosure
beyond what was provided, but § 37:2-33 independently requires an attached
statement of assets.

What happens if the marriage is void?

Under § 37:2-39, an agreement that otherwise would have been a premarital
agreement is enforceable only to the extent necessary to avoid an inequitable
result.

Statutes and sources

• N.J.S.A. 37:2-31 through 37:2-41 — Act name, definition, form,
  permitted subjects, child-support limit, effect, amendment, enforcement,
  void marriage, construction, and application. Official P.L.2006, c.103
  PDF (accessed 2026-07-27).
• P.L.2013, c.72 — current execution-time unconscionability rule, deletion
  of the enforcement-time rule for new/revised agreements, and prospective
  application. Official chapter-law
  PDF (accessed 2026-07-27).
• Sacharow v. Sacharow, 177 N.J. 62 (2003) — custody best-interest
  benchmark. New Jersey Supreme Court
  opinion (accessed
  2026-07-27).