Kentucky: C-
Statutes
Kentucky has very limited statutes regarding prenuptial agreements. Prenuptial agreements are mainly upheld via court precedent.
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
Kentucky reviews prenuptial agreements for unconscionability both at execution (signing) AND at enforcement (divorce), meaning courts can reject agreements if circumstances change during marriage. This dual-review standard creates uncertainty for couples entering prenups.
Unconscionability Standard
A prenup is unenforceable if: (1) involuntary execution through fraud, duress, or mistake; (2) unconscionable at signing OR enforcement; OR (3) inadequate financial disclosure by the enforcing party. Kentucky applies the "Gentry test" examining whether the agreement was obtained through fraud/duress/mistake, whether it's unconscionable, and whether circumstances changed drastically making enforcement unreasonable.
Spousal Support Public Assistance Minimum
Maintenance waivers can be reviewed for unconscionability at both execution and enforcement. Courts will not enforce spousal support waivers if enforcement would leave one party dependent on 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 by law, but courts have refused to enforce prenups where a spouse was denied the opportunity to consult with an attorney. Separate counsel dramatically strengthens enforceability.
Financial Disclosure
Full financial disclosure required, with the burden of proof on the party seeking to enforce the agreement. Actual knowledge of a spouse's assets can satisfy disclosure requirements even without formal written schedules. However, boilerplate clauses claiming "full knowledge" are insufficient without actual disclosure.
Low Burden to Challenge
Kentucky places the burden of proof on the party seeking to ENFORCE the prenup, not the challenging party. The enforcing party must prove full disclosure, voluntary execution, and lack of unconscionability at both signing and enforcement by preponderance of evidence. This makes prenups easy to challenge and reject.
Child Support and Custody
Child support and custody clauses are unenforceable and could undermine the entire agreement. Do not include.
Case Law
King v. King, No. 2020-CA-0113-MR (Ky. App. 2021)
Despite both parties being educated and previously married, the Court of Appeals invalidated a prenuptial agreement where neither party provided the required financial disclosures and credible testimony established the wife was unaware of her husband's $5.2 million estate including real property, bank accounts, retirement accounts, and a $4 million life insurance policy.
Kentucky Court of Appeals Case (circa 2001) - Net Worth Increase Case
The court invalidated a prenuptial agreement where a husband's net worth was approximately $5 million at the time of the second marriage and $5.2 million at his death four years later, because neither party provided financial disclosures despite a boilerplate clause claiming full knowledge, and the wife credibly testified she was unaware of his full financial situation.
Edwardson v. Edwardson, 798 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1990)
In this landmark case that reversed 75 years of precedent, the Kentucky Supreme Court enforced a prenuptial agreement providing for $75 per week in spousal maintenance after a two-and-a-half-year marriage, establishing that prenuptial agreements are valid in Kentucky when there is full financial disclosure, no unconscionable terms, no fraud, and no provisions regarding child support or custody.
Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990)
The Kentucky Supreme Court enforced a prenuptial agreement between previously married spouses with children from prior marriages where each kept their separate property, holding that a change in circumstances where one party's financial situation worsened was insufficient to render the agreement unconscionable, and establishing the three-prong "Gentry Test" examining fraud/duress/mistake, unconscionability, and whether circumstances changed to make enforcement unreasonable.
Lawson v. Loid, 896 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1995)
The Kentucky Supreme Court enforced a prenuptial agreement providing the wife with only $1,000 despite the husband's estate being valued between $2.5 and $4 million at his death (while the wife's estate was worth approximately $1 million), establishing that the burden of proof for full disclosure rests on the party seeking to enforce the agreement and finding adequate disclosure where the educated, previously married wife had worked as a bookkeeper at the husband's Buick dealership and both maintained separate bank accounts throughout the marriage.
Copley v. Copley, No. 2009-CA-001102-MR, 2010 WL 3447703 (Ky. App. Sep. 3, 2010) (Unpublished)
The Court of Appeals enforced a prenuptial agreement involving a $2.9 million estate where the wife received a $200,000 home, two vehicles, $4,000 in rental income, and $20,000 in cash, holding that the wife's substantial knowledge that the husband owned a business, post office building, retail store, car wash, motor home, two residences, vehicles, and served on a bank board satisfied the disclosure requirement even though financial schedules were not attached to the agreement.
Goshorn v. Wilson, No. 2010-CA-001931-MR (Ky. App. 2012)
The Court of Appeals enforced a 1981 prenuptial agreement between previously married spouses where a certified accountant provided the husband with a schedule of the wife's assets before signing, holding that the husband's admission that disclosures "probably" were made but "didn't register evidently" and his deposition testimony acknowledging knowledge of the majority of assets at signing was sufficient, and emphasizing that consultation with an attorney is not required for a valid prenuptial agreement.