Comparable, verifiable, refreshable
Compare prenup evidence across states.
Choose one legal issue for a complete 50-state matrix, or open a curated state-vs-state guide for a closer comparison.
Rows report current package coverage and citations. They do not reduce nuanced legal standards to unsupported yes-or-no claims.Full matrices
One issue. Every state.
Each matrix includes every jurisdiction, the exact number of matching authority records, citations, and a visible gap when no standalone record is present.
Signing formalities
A source map for writing, signature, notarization, acknowledgment, and related execution records catalogued in each state package.
Acknowledgment
Catalogued authorities that address acknowledgment, notarization, or recordable-instrument formalities.
Effective date
A state-by-state index of catalogued authorities concerning when a premarital agreement takes effect.
Permitted subjects
Catalogued statutory sources concerning property, support, estate, insurance, choice-of-law, and other agreement subjects.
Property
Evidence records concerning property classification, control, disposition, and related agreement terms.
Spousal support
Catalogued authorities concerning premarital waivers, limits, or other treatment of spousal support.
Children and support
Catalogued authorities concerning child-support or child-related limits on premarital agreements.
Amendment and revocation
A source map for the formalities used to amend or revoke a premarital agreement.
Voluntariness
Catalogued statutes and decisions that identify voluntariness or related enforcement inquiries.
Financial disclosure
Catalogued authorities concerning disclosure, knowledge, waiver, and financial-obligation records.
Independent counsel
Evidence records that expressly address independent representation in the current state packages.
Timing
Catalogued authorities that expressly address time between presentation, counsel review, and execution.
Public assistance
Catalogued authorities addressing support terms and eligibility for public assistance.
Void marriage
Catalogued statutory treatment of agreements when the contemplated marriage is later determined to be void.
Other limitations
Catalogued authorities addressing public policy, unconscionability, statutory limits, or other enforcement boundaries.
Matrix and list placement describes the records in PrenupsAI's current evidence packages. It does not rank legal strictness, predict enforceability, or mean that an unlisted state has no applicable rule. Open the cited sources to inspect the underlying authority.
Curated comparisons
State versus state.
These editorial comparisons use manually sourced leads and topic-by-topic evidence columns. A two-state interactive comparator can be added without generating thin pages for all 1,225 possible pairs.
California vs. Texas prenup requirements
California and Texas both use statutory premarital-agreement frameworks, but California's package separately identifies counsel and timing protections while Texas's package centers its enforcement evidence on voluntariness, disclosure, waiver, and knowledge.
CA vs NYCalifornia vs. New York prenup requirements
California's package emphasizes a signed writing plus statutory counsel, timing, and disclosure safeguards; New York's package uses a subscribed-and-acknowledged formality and separate property, maintenance, and child-related provisions.
FL vs TXFlorida vs. Texas prenup requirements
Florida and Texas both catalog writing, content, child-support protection, amendment, and enforcement, while Florida's statute also contains a distinct public-assistance safeguard.
NY vs ILNew York vs. Illinois prenup requirements
New York's package begins with a deed-style acknowledgment formality, while Illinois uses a signed-writing rule and codifies disclosure, hardship, void-marriage, and limitations provisions in its uniform act.
CO vs WAColorado vs. Washington prenup requirements
Colorado's source-catalogued package points to a modern uniform statute with signed-record, counsel, and disclosure safeguards; Washington's package points to an appellate framework separating substantive fairness from procedural review.
AZ vs COArizona vs. Colorado prenup requirements
Arizona uses a premarital-agreement statute centered on writing, permitted subjects, and execution-time enforcement, while Colorado's newer framework separately covers premarital and marital agreements, access to counsel, and state-specific unenforceable terms.
NY vs FLNew York vs. Florida prenup requirements
New York's package begins with subscribed-and-acknowledged execution and issue-specific domestic-relations rules; Florida uses a detailed statutory act with writing, disclosure, support, public-assistance, and void-marriage provisions.
TX vs WATexas vs. Washington prenup requirements
Texas supplies a compact statutory formation and enforcement test, while Washington's leading appellate framework separates substantive fairness from procedural safeguards and requires current case-law review.
MA vs PAMassachusetts vs. Pennsylvania prenup requirements
Massachusetts pairs written-contract authority with a two-stage appellate fairness review, while Pennsylvania codifies voluntary execution, disclosure or knowledge, and a clear-and-convincing challenge burden.
NC vs VANorth Carolina vs. Virginia prenup requirements
North Carolina and Virginia both use enacted premarital-agreement statutes, but their current packages must be read through separate state text, enactment history, and appellate applications rather than treated as interchangeable model rules.
NJ vs CTNew Jersey vs. Connecticut prenup requirements
New Jersey's package includes annexed-asset and counsel-sensitive statutory history, while Connecticut separately catalogues writing, content, enforcement, and agreement-date applicability under its state act.
MN vs WIMinnesota vs. Wisconsin prenup requirements
Minnesota's rewritten 2024 framework uses witnesses, acknowledgment, counsel, disclosure, and timing-related burdens, while Wisconsin uses its marital-property agreement statute together with the Button fairness framework.
OR vs WAOregon vs. Washington prenup requirements
Oregon's package follows an enacted premarital-agreement chapter with uniformity and severability provisions; Washington relies on the Matson and Bernard appellate framework plus mandatory Title 26 boundaries.
HI vs CAHawaii vs. California prenup requirements
Hawaii's enacted framework and controlling Supreme Court analysis require their own applicability and enforcement review, while California separately codifies counsel, timing, disclosure, and support safeguards.
WV vs OHWest Virginia vs. Ohio prenup requirements
West Virginia's 2023 act governs qualifying new premarital agreements and preserves a separate pre-Act history, while Ohio remains rooted in the Gross premarital framework with a distinct 2023 postnuptial transition.