Colorado: C
Statutes
UPMAA (C.R.S. § 14-2-306 through § 14-2-309)
Separate Property
All assets can remain separate property, avoiding costly divorce settlements. Joint assets and debts titled in both names are split 50/50 as marital property.
Unconscionability Dual Review
Courts review property/debt provisions for unconscionability only at execution. However, spousal maintenance and attorney fee provisions are reviewed at the time of enforcement.
Unconscionability Standard
A prenup is unenforceable if the party proves: (1) involuntary execution OR duress; (2) no access to independent legal representation; (3) inadequate financial disclosure; OR (4) no notice of rights waived (if unrepresented).
Spousal Support Review at Enforcement
Maintenance provisions must not be "unconscionable at the time of enforcement." Courts evaluate unconscionability considering standard of living, income disparity, marriage length, and financial hardship.
Timing
No minimum specified, but we recommend signing the prenup 60+ days before the wedding, with both parties having 2-3 weeks to review the final version to minimize challenge risk.
Independent Counsel
Not required, but separate counsel dramatically strengthens enforceability if the agreement is later challenged. Sufficient time and financial capacity to review with an attorney is required, and if no counsel is ultimately retained, there must be a written waiver.
Financial Disclosure
"Adequate financial disclosure" of both parties assets, debts and income required, or can be expressly waived in writing. PerfectPrenup includes both.
Medium Burden to Challenge
Challenging party must prove the prenup is invalid by preponderance of evidence (standard burden, not the higher "clear and convincing" requirement). Marital agreements are strongly favored in law. The challenger must prove involuntary execution, duress, lack of counsel access, inadequate disclosure, or unconscionability.
Child Support and Custody
Child support and custody clauses are unenforceable and could undermine the entire agreement. Do not include.
Case Law
In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007)
The Colorado Supreme Court held that a waiver of attorney's fees in a prenuptial agreement is subject to review for unconscionability at the time of enforcement, and found the waiver unconscionable where the wife was a stay-at-home mother of triplets after only four years of marriage.
Boulder Trial Court Decision (2024-2025) - Vietnamese-Speaking Wife
Trial court found prenuptial agreement unenforceable because the Vietnamese-speaking wife, who had only conversational English skills, did not understand the legal significance of the agreement despite understanding the literal words, and was not provided adequate access to counsel in her native language.
Linker v. Linker, 470 P.2d 921 (Colo. App. 1970)
Court of Appeals declared antenuptial agreement void due to constructive fraud where the wife lacked sophistication, had limited knowledge of her husband's property rights, and did not understand the legal effect of the agreement despite having general knowledge of his assets.
Newman v. Newman, 653 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1982)
Colorado Supreme Court held that maintenance provisions in antenuptial agreements are reviewable for unconscionability at the time of enforcement (not just at execution), establishing that circumstances can change during marriage making once-fair provisions unconscionable.
In re Marriage of Bailey, 2025 WL 716404 (Colo. App. 2025)
Court of Appeals upheld prenuptial agreement where wife had general knowledge of husband's finances and her claims of pressure and fear that husband would "snap" did not constitute duress, holding that general awareness of spouse's net worth satisfies disclosure requirements without requiring exact values.
In re Marriage of Watters, 2025 WL 865141 (Colo. App. 2025)
Court of Appeals upheld postnuptial agreement signed 16 years into marriage despite wife's depression and anxiety at signing, holding that husband failed to prove duress and that parties' subsequent conduct inconsistent with the agreement did not establish abandonment.
In re Marriage of Kinning, 2023 WL 12052426 (Colo. App. 2023)
Court of Appeals upheld postnuptial agreement despite husband's controlling behavior and ultimatum to sign within hours before international family vacation, finding wife retained financial independence with unlimited access to joint accounts and was not rendered susceptible to pressure.
In re Marriage of Zander, 480 P.3d 676 (Colo. 2021)
Colorado Supreme Court held that oral agreements to exclude property from the marital estate are unenforceable, requiring that all premarital and marital agreements must be in writing and signed by both parties to be valid under Colorado law.
In re Marriage of Alt, No. 21CA0591 (Colo. App. Mar. 3, 2022)
Court of Appeals reversed trial court and enforced prenuptial agreement's "net appreciation" provision, holding that well-drafted prenuptial agreements can override normal commingling rules and protect separate property principal even when marital funds are commingled with premarital accounts.
In re Marriage of Blaine, 480 P.3d 691 (Colo. 2021)
Colorado Supreme Court held that an interspousal transfer deed signed by only one spouse does not constitute a "valid agreement" to exclude property from the marital estate, as both spouses must sign for an agreement to be valid under marital property law.