Can a prenup waive alimony? It depends entirely on the state
Spousal support is the most contested clause in any prenuptial agreement, and it is the one where the state you divorce in matters most. In three states a waiver is void no matter what. In fifteen, a judge looks at it again at the divorce. In eighteen, it holds — but not below the line where a spouse would need public assistance. In eleven, it is enforced as written. Four are still unsettled.
The short answer
Usually yes, with conditions. The two questions that decide it are when the court judges fairness — at signing, or again at the divorce — and whether there is a floor the waiver cannot push a spouse below. A formula for support survives far more often than a zero.
The short version3 points · tap one to jump to it
In this subject 4
The five kinds of rule
- Cannot be waived — Iowa, New Mexico and South Dakota. The statute says a premarital agreement may not adversely affect a spouse’s right to support. The rest of the agreement can survive; the support clause does not.
- Judged again at divorce — the court asks whether the waiver is unconscionable, or causes hardship, now, not only when it was signed. California adds a hard rule: no independent lawyer at signing, no enforceable support waiver.
- Enforced, with a public-assistance floor — the 1983 uniform act’s safety valve. If the waiver would leave a spouse eligible for public assistance, the court may order support, but only enough to lift them off it. Not a normal alimony award.
- Enforced as written — fairness is judged at signing. If the process was clean, a lopsided waiver stands. Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Delaware do not even have the public-assistance floor.
- Unsettled — no statute and no supreme-court ruling on alimony waivers specifically.
Every state
Filter by the kind of rule, or scroll. Each row links to the statute or case it rests on.
| State | The rule | The catch | The law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama Enforced as written | Upheld if the spouse relying on it shows either a fair deal, or that the other spouse signed freely with independent advice and full knowledge of the estate | No statute. The burden sits on the spouse relying on the agreement, so a waiver signed without a lawyer or full disclosure is exposed. | Barnhill v. Barnhill, 386 So. 2d 749 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) |
| Alaska Unsettled | No statute. Courts ask about fraud or nondisclosure, unconscionability at signing, and whether changed circumstances make enforcement unfair | Brooks was a property case. No Alaska Supreme Court decision on an alimony waiver was found. | Brooks v. Brooks, 733 P.2d 1044 (Alaska 1987) |
| Arizona Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, but a court may order support to the extent needed to keep a spouse off public assistance | The override lifts support to the public-assistance line, not to a normal alimony award. | A.R.S. §25-202(D) |
| Arkansas Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override. A written waiver of financial disclosure counts only if made after consulting a lawyer | Waiving disclosure without a lawyer does not count. | Ark. Code §9-11-406 |
| California Judged again at divorce | Unenforceable if the spouse it is used against had no independent lawyer when signing, or if it is unconscionable at the time of enforcement | No lawyer at signing and the waiver fails outright. With one, a judge can still refuse it at divorce. | Cal. Fam. Code §1612(c) |
| Colorado Judged again at divorce | Maintenance terms are unenforceable insofar as they are unconscionable at the time of enforcement; the rest of the agreement survives | Judged by the circumstances at divorce. No public-assistance clause – the unconscionability test does that work. | C.R.S. §14-2-309(5) |
| Connecticut Judged again at divorce | Unenforceable if unconscionable when signed or when enforcement is sought, or without a reasonable opportunity to consult a lawyer; public-assistance override too | A waiver that has become unconscionable by the divorce can be struck. | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§46b-36d, 46b-36g |
| Delaware Enforced as written | Expressly permitted. Only two defenses: involuntary signing, or unconscionable at signing combined with inadequate disclosure | Delaware left out the uniform act’s public-assistance safety valve. | 13 Del. C. §§323(a)(4), 326 |
| District of Columbia Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override. Covers domestic partners as well as spouses | Support only up to the public-assistance line. | D.C. Code §46-506(b) |
| Florida Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Permanent alimony may be waived, with the public-assistance override. Temporary support while the case is pending cannot be conclusively waived | A judge can still order support during the divorce, whatever the prenup says. | Fla. Stat. §61.079; Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1972) |
| Georgia Judged again at divorce | Three questions: fraud or nondisclosure; unconscionability; and whether circumstances have changed so that enforcement would be unfair and unreasonable. Must be witnessed by two, one a notary | A properly signed waiver can still fall if life has changed enough since signing. | Scherer v. Scherer, 249 Ga. 635 (1982); Mallen v. Mallen, 280 Ga. 43 (2005); O.C.G.A. §19-3-62 |
| Hawaii Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override | The only safety net is public assistance, not general unfairness. | HRS §§572D-3, 572D-6(b) |
| Idaho Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override | A spouse left poorer but not public-assistance-eligible gets no relief. | Idaho Code §§32-923, 32-925(2) |
| Illinois Judged again at divorce | A court may order support if the waiver causes undue hardship in light of circumstances not reasonably foreseeable when the agreement was signed | Unforeseen hardship, such as a disability, can override the waiver. Foreseeable hardship cannot. | 750 ILCS 10/7(b) |
| Indiana Judged again at divorce | A court may order maintenance if the waiver causes extreme hardship under circumstances not reasonably foreseeable at signing | ‘Extreme’ hardship is a higher bar than Illinois’s ‘undue’ hardship. | Ind. Code §31-11-3-8(b) |
| Iowa Cannot be waived | “The right of a spouse or child to support shall not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement.” | An alimony waiver in an Iowa prenup is unenforceable however fair it looked when signed. It also voids waivers of attorney fees tied to support. | Iowa Code §596.5(2); In re Marriage of Erpelding, 917 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018) |
| Kansas Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override | The waiver stands unless it would leave a spouse on public assistance. | K.S.A. 23-2404, 23-2407(b) |
| Kentucky Judged again at divorce | Full disclosure required, and the agreement must not be unconscionable at the time enforcement is sought; if it is, the court may modify it | Fairness is checked again at divorce, not only at signing. | Edwardson v. Edwardson, 798 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1990) |
| Louisiana Unsettled | A waiver of interim support while the divorce is pending is void as against public policy. Final support: one court of appeal has enforced a waiver; the state supreme court has not ruled | Support during the divorce is available even after waiving ‘all’ support. | Holliday v. Holliday, 358 So. 2d 618 (La. 1978) |
| Maine Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override | Agreements signed before 1 October 1993 could lapse 18 months after the couple had a child unless reaffirmed in writing. | 19-A M.R.S. §§604, 608(2) |
| Maryland Enforced as written | Enforced, but the spouse relying on it must prove full and truthful disclosure (or adequate knowledge), no overreaching, and an opportunity to get a lawyer | Because engaged couples are treated as being in a relationship of trust, the burden is on the spouse enforcing it. | Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552 (1984) |
| Massachusetts Judged again at divorce | Checked twice: fair and reasonable when signed, and a ‘second look’ at divorce – would enforcement leave the spouse without sufficient property, maintenance or employment to support themselves? | A waiver that was fair at signing can still be set aside at divorce. | DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18 (2002) |
| Michigan Judged again at divorce | A prenup cannot limit the court’s power to award property or support to a spouse in need; an agreement that tries is void to that extent | A Michigan judge can still award support from either spouse’s assets if the needier spouse’s share is not enough to live on. | Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583 (2017); MCL 552.23 |
| Minnesota Judged again at divorce | Signed at least 7 days before the wedding, two witnesses, acknowledged, full disclosure and a meaningful chance at counsel. Terms can be refused if unconscionable, including through drastically changed circumstances not foreseen | Skip the seven days or the witnesses and the whole agreement is at risk. | Minn. Stat. §519.11 |
| Mississippi Enforced as written | Enforced like any other contract if fairly executed with full disclosure; courts will not relieve a party of a term that became more onerous than expected | A waiver that turned out worse than expected will generally stand. | Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003) |
| Missouri Enforced as written | Enforced if entered freely, fairly, knowingly and in good faith with full disclosure, and not unconscionable | A large income gap alone will not void the agreement if disclosure and process were fair. | Brennan v. Brennan, 955 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. App. 1997); Gould v. Rafaeli, 822 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. App. 1991) |
| Montana Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override | Support only up to the public-assistance line. | Mont. Code §40-2-608 |
| Nebraska Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Enforceable, with the public-assistance override | The waiver holds unless it would push the spouse onto public assistance. | Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-1006(2) |
| Nevada Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Expressly permitted; unenforceable if involuntary, or unconscionable when signed without fair disclosure; public-assistance override | Judged at signing, not at divorce. | NRS 123A.050, 123A.080 |
| New Hampshire Judged again at divorce | Presumed valid unless the challenger shows fraud or nondisclosure, unconscionability, or circumstances so changed since signing that enforcement is unfair | A big enough change in circumstances can undo the waiver. | RSA 460:2-a; MacFarlane v. Rich, 132 N.H. 608 (1989) |
| New Jersey Enforced as written | Expressly permitted. The challenger must prove by clear and convincing evidence it was involuntary or unconscionable when signed. The 2013 amendment removed ‘unconscionable at the time enforcement is sought’ | Since 2013, a waiver that became harsh by the divorce cannot be attacked on that ground. | N.J.S.A. 37:2-38 (as amended by P.L. 2013, c. 72) |
| New Mexico Cannot be waived | “A premarital agreement may not adversely affect the right of a child or spouse to support.” | A New Mexico prenup cannot waive or reduce spousal support at all. | NMSA 1978 §40-3A-4(B) |
| New York Judged again at divorce | Must be acknowledged like a deed. Maintenance terms must be fair and reasonable when made and not unconscionable at final judgment, and cannot leave a spouse likely to become a public charge | Checked twice, and a missing notary acknowledgment can void the whole agreement. | DRL §236(B)(3); GOL §5-311 |
| North Carolina Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Expressly permitted, with the public-assistance override – but only after a finding that the spouse is a dependent spouse who meets the ordinary tests for support | North Carolina adds a dependent-spouse finding before the override applies. | N.C.G.S. §§52B-4(a)(4), 52B-7(b) |
| North Dakota Judged again at divorce | Unenforceable without access to counsel or adequate disclosure; an unrepresented spouse must get a prominent plain-language warning. A court may refuse any term whose enforcement would cause substantial hardship through a material change in circumstances after signing | The hardship review applies to any term, not only support. | N.D.C.C. §§14-03.2-08, 14-03.2-09 |
| Ohio Judged again at divorce | Support terms may be modified at divorce if they have become unconscionable; property terms are not reviewed that way | Support terms that were fair when signed can be rewritten at divorce. | Gross v. Gross, 11 Ohio St. 3d 99 (1984); R.C. 3105.18 |
| Oklahoma Unsettled | No statute on support waivers. The Court of Civil Appeals has enforced a no-alimony agreement using a fairness-or-disclosure test | No Oklahoma Supreme Court holding on alimony waivers. | Griffin v. Griffin, 2004 OK CIV APP 126 |
| Oregon Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Expressly permitted, with an override covering public assistance and medical assistance | Oregon’s floor also covers medical assistance. | ORS 108.710, 108.725(2) |
| Pennsylvania Enforced as written | Pure contract. Set aside only on clear and convincing proof of involuntary signing or inadequate disclosure. No fairness review and no public-assistance override | Courts will not ask whether the terms are reasonable. A lopsided waiver stands if disclosure was adequate. | 23 Pa. C.S. §3106; Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392 (1990) |
| Rhode Island Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | To void it the spouse must prove involuntary signing AND unconscionability with inadequate disclosure; public-assistance override | ‘And’ where every other state says ‘or’ – among the hardest prenups in the country to challenge. | R.I. Gen. Laws §15-17-6 |
| South Carolina Judged again at divorce | Not unconscionable or against public policy in itself. Three questions: fraud or nondisclosure; unconscionability; changed circumstances making enforcement unfair | Changes the spouse could foresee – expected health decline, for instance – did not defeat the waiver. | Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382 (2003) |
| South Dakota Cannot be waived | The statute deliberately omits spousal support; provisions purporting to limit or waive it are void as contrary to public policy | Even a limit on support, not only a full waiver, is void. The property terms can survive. | SDCL 25-2-18; Sanford v. Sanford, 2005 SD 34 |
| Tennessee Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | A voluntary, knowing waiver is fully enforced unless enforcement would make a spouse a public charge | The public-charge floor comes from the court, not the statute. | Cary v. Cary, 937 S.W.2d 777 (Tenn. 1996) |
| Texas Enforced as written | Expressly permitted. Unenforceable only if involuntary, or unconscionable when signed with no fair disclosure, no written waiver and no adequate knowledge. These are the exclusive defenses | No public-assistance override, and common-law defenses are expressly excluded. | Tex. Fam. Code §§4.003, 4.006 |
| Utah Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Unenforceable if involuntary, or fraudulent when signed without disclosure; public-assistance override | Utah’s test is ‘fraudulent’, not ‘unconscionable’, and the section was renumbered on 1 September 2024. | Utah Code §§81-3-203, 81-3-205 (formerly §30-8-6) |
| Vermont Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Fair disclosure, voluntary, fair terms, not unconscionable when signed – and public policy bars enforcement that leaves a spouse a public charge ‘or close to it’ | In 2025 the Vermont Supreme Court reversed a trial court that had struck a full maintenance waiver. | Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353 (1991); Lacroix v. Rysz, 2025 VT 16 |
| Virginia Enforced as written | Expressly permitted. Unenforceable only if involuntary, or unconscionable when signed without disclosure | No public-assistance override – Virginia left that clause out. | Va. Code §§20-150(4), 20-151 |
| Washington Enforced as written | Two steps: if the agreement makes reasonable provision for the other spouse it is enforced; if not, only with full disclosure and entry on independent legal advice | A one-sided support bar makes the agreement unfair, and then the procedure has to be spotless. | In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479 (1986); In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895 (2009) |
| West Virginia Enforced as written | Presumed valid, and the challenger must prove it invalid – but only if both parties had independent counsel | Without a lawyer on each side, the presumption flips onto the spouse enforcing it. | Gant v. Gant, 174 W. Va. 740 (1985); Ware v. Ware, 224 W. Va. 599 (2009) |
| Wisconsin Enforced, with a public-assistance floor | Support may be modified or eliminated, with the public-assistance override; for maintenance the agreement is one factor the court weighs | Without an explicit maintenance waiver, the court can still award maintenance. | Wis. Stat. §§766.58(3)(d), 766.58(9)(b), 767.56(1c)(h) |
| Wyoming Unsettled | Prenups are enforceable under ordinary contract rules – unconscionability, duress, incompetence | No Wyoming Supreme Court holding on an alimony waiver specifically. | Long v. Long, 2018 WY 26 |
Every row read at the statute or opinion cited, 21 September 2026. Where a rule comes from a lower court, or from a case read only as quoted in a later one, the row says so rather than overstating it.
What this means if you are drafting one
- Write a formula, not a zero. A fixed sum per year of marriage, a cap, a step-down — each has a far better chance of surviving a second look than a flat waiver, because it is harder to call unconscionable.
- Get separate lawyers. In California it is the difference between enforceable and not. In West Virginia it decides who carries the burden. Almost everywhere else it is the single strongest fact in the agreement’s favor.
- Plan for the second look. If you might divorce in a state that re-judges fairness at the end, ask what the clause looks like after twenty years, a disability, or a career given up for children. That is what the judge will ask.
- Name the governing law — and understand that a court applying another state’s public policy on support may not honor the choice.
- Temporary support is different. Florida and Louisiana both allow support while the divorce is pending whatever the prenup says.
Keep reading
- What a prenup needs to cover — and what your state already protects
- “What am I not thinking about?”
- The prenup and death — the elective share in every state
- Your prenup cannot touch your 401(k)
- Alimony — how it works when there is no agreement
General information about how courts treat these clauses, not advice about your agreement. Case law moves; a rule verified in one state says nothing about another. Checked 21 September 2026. If a rule here has changed, tell us.