What makes a prenup hold up
A prenuptial agreement is only worth what a court will enforce, and courts look first at how it was made, then at what it says. More than half the states have adopted some form of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, and its enforcement test is short. The agreement fails if the person challenging it proves they did not sign voluntarily. It also fails if they prove it was unconscionable when signed and that, before signing, they were not given fair and reasonable disclosure of the other person's finances, did not expressly waive further disclosure in writing, and did not otherwise have adequate knowledge of those finances. Texas uses that test in section 4.006 of its Family Code and makes it the only way to attack the agreement. Florida adds fraud, duress, coercion and overreaching as separate grounds in section 61.079(7)(a). California has gone furthest: under Family Code section 1615 an agreement is treated as involuntary unless the court finds a list of things happened, including legal advice or a written waiver of it, a seven-day gap between receiving the final agreement and signing, and a written explanation of rights for anyone without a lawyer. Pennsylvania, by contrast, treats a prenup as an ordinary contract after Simeone v. Simeone (1990), enforcing it without asking whether the terms are fair, provided there was full and fair disclosure. The template is built around the strictest of these. Clause 2 and Schedules A and B deal with disclosure, clause 3 and Schedule C with legal advice, and clause 4 and Schedule D with voluntariness and timing. Filling in those parts properly does more for enforceability than any wording in the property clauses.