Vermont: Prenuptial Agreement Requirements

Requirements one by one

Vermont uses a Statute of Frauds plus case law

Vermont has no comprehensive Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. The writing rule
comes from 12 V.S.A. § 181, and the Vermont Supreme Court's Lacroix v. Rysz,
2025 VT 16, supplies the current statement of the enforceability framework first
developed in Bassler v. Bassler.

The ordinary divorce statutes remain the backdrop. 15 V.S.A. § 751(a) gives the
court equitable-property authority, and § 752(a)-(b) supplies the maintenance
framework unless an enforceable agreement changes the parties' rights.

The charged party must sign a writing

Section 181 bars an action on an agreement made in consideration of civil
marriage unless the agreement, or a memorandum or note of it, is in writing and
signed by the party to be charged. Enforcement against both spouses therefore
normally calls for both signatures, but the statute itself is phrased in terms
of the person against whom enforcement is sought.

Marriage supplies the contemplated consideration. No separate payment or
exchange is required merely to support the premarital bargain.

No special notary or witness formality applies

Section 181 requires a writing and the charged party's signature. Vermont has
not added a prenup-specific notary, acknowledgment, witness, oath, attestation,
or recording requirement for basic enforcement between spouses.

A deed or another instrument used to carry out a real-property provision may
have its own formalities. That does not convert those rules into universal
prenup execution requirements.

Fair financial disclosure is an affirmative requirement

Lacroix restates the first Bassler factor: each spouse must make fair and
reasonable disclosure of financial status. Vermont's controlling case-law test
does not replace disclosure with the UPAA alternatives of an express written
waiver or actual or constructive adequate knowledge.

Disclosure is assessed with the rest of the formation process, but it remains
a separate enforceability requirement rather than merely evidence bearing on
unconscionability.

Counsel and signing time are assessed through voluntariness

Vermont has no fixed statutory counsel mandate or pre-wedding review period.
The second Lacroix/Bassler factor asks whether each spouse entered the
agreement voluntarily and freely.

In Lacroix, the signer received the proposed agreement about two weeks before
the wedding, retained independent counsel, negotiated terms, received full
disclosure, and signed one day before the ceremony against counsel's advice.
The trial court's finding of voluntary execution was not disputed on appeal.
That fact pattern is not a one-day safe harbor; it illustrates Vermont's
case-specific approach.

Lacroix separates fairness from unconscionability

The fairness source is case law. Lacroix identifies four requirements: fair
financial disclosure, voluntary execution, substantively fair property terms,
and an agreement that was not unconscionable when made. It treats substantive
fairness and unconscionability as distinct inquiries.

Unconscionability is measured at execution. Lacroix rejected the proposition
that leaving each spouse in the premarriage financial position automatically
“vitiates” marriage or makes the agreement unconscionable.

Maintenance may be waived, subject to public-charge policy

A prenup may eliminate maintenance. Lacroix reversed a ruling that treated
the lack of a significant property award or maintenance as inherently
unconscionable and explained that preserving premarital assets is a central
purpose of these agreements.

The divorce-time limit is narrower. Bassler, reaffirmed in Lacroix, bars
enforcement when the agreement would leave a spouse a public charge or close to
it. Vermont does not use a general enforcement-time unconscionability review to
rebalance every harsh support waiver.

Child support and parental rights remain with the court

Section 654 requires a child-support guideline and makes the calculated amount
the presumptive total parental obligation. 15 V.S.A. § 665(a)-(b) requires the court to
order parental rights and responsibilities and directs it to the child's best
interests.

Those statutory duties prevent a premarital agreement from conclusively fixing
child support or binding the court's parental-rights decision.

Later modification follows ordinary contract rules

Vermont has no prenup-specific amendment or revocation statute. In Gamache v.
Smurro, the Supreme Court stated that the parties remained free to modify the
agreement whether or not it contained a modification clause. A later deed and
the parties' conduct superseded the inconsistent earlier property term.

The route therefore depends on ordinary contract law and the subject of the
change, not a universal notarized-amendment formality.

What trips people up

• Fairness and unconscionability are separate. Lacroix treats them as two
  distinct requirements and measures unconscionability at execution.
• One day before the wedding is not a statutory deadline. The full
  circumstances in Lacroix supported voluntariness; Vermont has no one-day
  safe harbor.
• The public-charge test is not a general second look. It protects the
  public and the dependent spouse without authorizing a complete rewrite based
  only on later inequality.

Common questions

Does a Vermont prenup need notarization?

The governing Statute of Frauds requires a writing signed by the party charged.
It does not require notarization or witnesses for the prenup itself.

Can a maintenance waiver be enforced?

Yes, if the agreement otherwise satisfies Lacroix and Bassler. But public
policy prevents enforcement that would leave the spouse a public charge or
close to it at divorce.

Must both prospective spouses have lawyers?

No statute or controlling case makes actual separate counsel a universal
condition. Counsel, negotiation, timing, disclosure, and understanding can be
important evidence of voluntary and fair execution.

Statutes and sources

• 12 V.S.A. § 181 — writing and signature by the party charged for an
  agreement made in consideration of civil marriage. Vermont General
  Assembly
  (accessed 2026-07-28).
• 15 V.S.A. §§ 751-752 — default equitable-property and maintenance
  authority. Official §
  751 and
  official §
  752 (accessed
  2026-07-28).
• Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16, and Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353 (1991) —
  disclosure, voluntariness, substantive fairness, execution-time
  unconscionability, and the public-charge limit. Lacroix
  and Bassler (accessed
  2026-07-28).
• 15 V.S.A. §§ 654 and 665 — presumptive child-support guideline and
  best-interest parental-rights order. Official §
  654 and
  official §
  665 (accessed
  2026-07-28).
• Gamache v. Smurro, 2006 VT 67 — contract-law modification by a later
  inconsistent instrument and conduct. Opinion
  (accessed 2026-07-28).