Connecticut: C
Statutes
Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act (1995)
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
Connecticut reviews prenuptial agreements for unconscionability both at execution (signing) AND at enforcement (divorce), meaning courts can easily reject or modify agreements if circumstances change during marriage. This creates uncertainty regarding entering into prenuptial agreements and marriage.
Unconscionability Standard
A prenup is unenforceable if the challenging party proves: (1) involuntary execution; (2) unconscionability at signing OR enforcement; (3) inadequate financial disclosure; OR (4) no opportunity for independent counsel. Connecticut requires "an extremely high level of unfairness"—provisions that "surprise or shock the conscience."
Spousal Support Public Assistance Minimum
Maintenance waivers can be reviewed for unconscionability at both execution and enforcement. Courts may override spousal support waivers if enforcement would make one party eligible for public assistance, and if circumstances change during marriage, courts can require significantly more than public assistance.
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. Reach out to an attorney at least 4-6 months before the wedding with your draft prenup. Better yet, sign the prenup before proposing.
Independent Counsel
Not required, but separate counsel dramatically strengthens enforceability if the agreement is later challenged. Both parties must at least have the opportunity to retain counsel.
Financial Disclosure
"Fair and reasonable" disclosure of all property interests required. Disclose all assets $1,000+ and income. A prenup disclosing approximate property holdings but insufficient income information was held unenforceable.
Medium Burden to Challenge
Challenging party bears the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence (standard burden, not higher clear and convincing threshold). Connecticut's dual-review unconscionability test and multiple enforcement grounds make prenups easier to modify or reject than stricter states.
Child Support and Custody
Child support and custody clauses are unenforceable and could undermine the entire agreement. Do not include.
Case Law
Peterson v. Sykes-Peterson, 129 Conn. App. 688 (2011)
Prenup with sunset provision expiring on seventh wedding anniversary was unenforceable where husband filed for divorce four months before anniversary but parties were still married on the anniversary date, as court found the unambiguous contract language voided the agreement based solely on reaching the anniversary while married, regardless of pending divorce proceedings.
Grabe v. Hokin, 341 Conn. 360 (2021) (Partially Modified)
Supreme Court enforced prenup where wife had $27.4 million and husband's assets dropped from $5 million to $2.1 million after house fire, yacht club destruction, and business failures, finding changed circumstances insufficient for unconscionability, but struck down the attorney fees provision requiring husband to pay over $1.5 million as unconscionable since it would financially cripple him.
Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166 (2007)
Supreme Court enforced prenup limiting wife to $400,000 plus residence where draft was provided one week before wedding and she consulted attorney for 30 minutes three days before wedding, holding that "fair and reasonable disclosure" focuses on substance not timing, and "reasonable opportunity" for counsel means opportunity for consultation, not extensive review.
Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153 (2010)
Supreme Court reversed trial court and enforced pre-1995 prenup despite 15+ year marriage with two children and substantial contributions by wife, holding that equitable considerations have no bearing on enforcement and courts cannot rewrite agreements based on changed circumstances unless they rise to unconscionability.
Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn. App. 721 (2005)
Appellate Court enforced prenup after 15-year marriage despite husband's assets increasing approximately 430% during marriage, finding that even including husband's $200,000 pension, the disparity in parties' financial situations remained substantially the same at execution and enforcement.
Beyor v. Beyor, 165 Conn. App. 193 (2015)
Appellate Court enforced prenup where husband had $4.5 million net worth and wife had $26,000 at divorce, holding agreement not unconscionable where wife voluntarily married husband with full understanding that if marriage failed she would receive nothing, despite her having ceased working and husband's substantially greater financial means.