Michigan Prenuptial Agreement

‍

Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583 (2017)

Court held that prenuptial agreements cannot deprive trial courts of equitable authority to invade separate property under MCL 552.23(1) and MCL 552.401, vacating a judgment that awarded husband $900,000+ and wife $95,000 with no alimony.

‍

Allard v. Allard (Allard I), 308 Mich. App. 536 (2014)

Court held that LLCs created during marriage are separate legal entities, so property acquired by the husband's six LLCs during marriage was marital property subject to equitable distribution despite prenup language protecting property acquired "in his individual capacity."

‍

‍Reed v. Reed, 265 Mich. App. 131 (2005) 

Court enforced 27-year-old prenup where husband accumulated millions during marriage while wife received minimal assets, ruling that long-term marriage, asset growth, and children were all reasonably foreseeable circumstances that did not justify invalidating the agreement.

‍

Hodge v. Parks, 303 Mich. App. 552 (2014) 

Court upheld postnuptial agreement signed during reconciliation after initial divorce filing, holding that postnups intended to promote harmonious marital relations and preserve marriage (rather than anticipate divorce) are enforceable if equitable.

‍

Skaates v. Kayser, 333 Mich. App. 61 (2020)

Court enforced postnuptial agreement signed one month after marriage where parties had negotiated terms for 16 months intending it to be prenuptial, ruling it did not violate public policy because it was meant to facilitate marriage and included marriage-preservation provisions like mandatory counseling.

‍

Ellis v. Ellis, Mich. Ct. App. Docket No. 349962 (Dec. 17, 2020)

Court upheld prenup post-Allard, holding that the invasion statutes (MCL 552.23(1) and 552.401) simply empower the circuit court and do not give a party an absolute right to invade the other spouse's separate property, and found no inequity warranting invasion given the wife's total award.

‍

Silverman v. Silverman, Mich. Ct. App. Case No. 336905 (Aug. 9, 2018)

Court held that Allard does not permit courts to "redefine the terms of a prenuptial agreement to make the agreement more equitable," establishing that courts can invoke invasion statutes but cannot rewrite prenup provisions themselves.

‍

1. Are prenuptial agreements enforceable in Michigan?

Yes, but with significant caveats. Michigan courts enforce prenuptial agreements under MCL 557.28, a one-sentence statute that says property contracts made in contemplation of marriage "remain in full force" after the wedding. The real enforceability framework comes from case law — primarily the three-part Rinvelt test (1991), which allows a court to void a prenup if (1) it was obtained through fraud, duress, or nondisclosure, (2) it was unconscionable when executed, or (3) circumstances have changed enough to make enforcement unfair. Michigan also applies dual review: the agreement is tested for fairness at both signing and divorce. Even a prenup that passes all three Rinvelt factors can still be overridden by a judge under the court's separate statutory "invasion" authority (MCL 552.23(1) and 552.401), as established in Allard v. Allard (2017). Bottom line: a well-drafted Michigan prenup is far better than no agreement, but it cannot guarantee a specific outcome the way prenups in UPAA states often can.

‍

2. How much does a prenup cost in Michigan?

Attorney-drafted prenups in Michigan typically cost $750–$2,500 per spouse for a standard agreement, and $2,500–$5,000+ per spouse for complex situations involving businesses, trusts, or high-value estates. Both parties should retain separate counsel, so total costs are roughly double the per-spouse figure. Online platforms offer cheaper options ($300–$600), but enforceability risk is substantially higher — especially in Michigan, where judicial discretion is broad and drafting must account for Allard invasion authority. Michigan prenup costs run 15–50% below major coastal markets due to lower overhead, but the legal complexity created by Michigan's case-law-only framework (no comprehensive prenup statute) can increase attorney time compared to states with clearer statutory rules.

‍

3. Can a Michigan judge override a prenup?

Yes — and this is Michigan's single biggest enforceability risk. Under Allard v. Allard, 318 Mich. App. 583 (2017), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that parties cannot use a prenuptial agreement to strip a divorce court of its equitable authority to "invade" separate property under MCL 552.23(1) (need basis) or MCL 552.401 (contribution basis). This means a Michigan judge can override your prenup's property division — and potentially its alimony waiver — if the judge determines that enforcement would produce an inequitable result. Later cases (Skaates v. Kayser, 2020; Ellis v. Ellis, 2020) clarified that this invasion power is discretionary, not automatic — courts will only override the agreement "if equity demands it." But the practical effect is that no Michigan prenup can fully eliminate judicial discretion over property or support.

‍

4. How can a prenup be challenged or thrown out in Michigan?

The challenging party bears the burden of proof under the three-part Rinvelt test. A Michigan court may void a prenup if: (1) it was obtained through fraud, duress, mistake, or nondisclosure of material facts; (2) it was unconscionable when signed; or (3) circumstances have changed so significantly since execution that enforcement would be unfair and unreasonable. On factor (3), the court first asks whether the changed circumstances were reasonably foreseeable — Reed v. Reed (2005) held that a long marriage, asset growth, and having children were all foreseeable and did not justify invalidating a 27-year-old prenup. Separately from the Rinvelt test, a court can invoke its statutory invasion authority under Allard even if the prenup passes all three factors. Signing well before the wedding, using independent counsel for both parties, and attaching thorough financial disclosure schedules all substantially reduce challenge risk.

‍

5. Can you waive alimony in a Michigan prenuptial agreement?

You can include an alimony waiver, and courts will often enforce it — but Michigan does not treat alimony waivers as absolute. Under the Allard framework, a divorce court retains equitable authority to award spousal support if enforcing the waiver would produce an inequitable result, such as leaving one spouse unable to meet basic needs. There is no bright-line rule for when a court will override an alimony waiver; it is judge-dependent and fact-specific. To maximize enforceability, structure the waiver with built-in fairness safeguards: consider a graduated support schedule tied to marriage duration, include a hardship exception, and ensure both parties had independent counsel and understood the waiver's implications at signing.

‍

6. Does a Michigan prenup need to be notarized or witnessed?

Michigan law requires prenuptial agreements to be in writing and signed by both parties (MCL 566.132(c)), but does not explicitly mandate notarization or witnesses by statute. That said, notarization is strongly recommended because it creates a presumption of voluntary execution that can be critical if the agreement is later challenged. Some Michigan practitioners also recommend at least one witness. Adding notarization and witnesses costs almost nothing and significantly strengthens enforceability — there is no good reason to skip either.

‍

7. Do you need a lawyer for a prenup in Michigan?

Independent counsel is not legally required but is effectively essential for enforceability. Michigan courts give far greater deference to prenups where both parties had separate attorneys — in Allard I, the wife's lack of independent counsel was a factor weighing against the agreement. The Rinvelt factor for fraud, duress, and nondisclosure is much harder to prove when both parties were represented. Given Michigan's broad judicial discretion and the Allard invasion risk, a self-drafted prenup faces meaningfully higher invalidation risk than in states with clearer statutory frameworks. Budget for two attorneys (one per party), not one.

‍

8. How far before the wedding should you sign a Michigan prenup?

Michigan has no statutory minimum, but we recommend signing at least 30–60 days before the wedding, with both parties having 2–3 weeks to review the final version with their respective attorneys. Presenting a prenup days before the ceremony — as happened in Allard, where the husband gave the wife a draft approximately 10 days before the wedding — creates a duress argument that can undermine the entire agreement. Courts look at whether each party had a meaningful opportunity to review, negotiate, and consult counsel without time pressure. Earlier is always better.

‍

9. Can a prenup protect my business in Michigan?

Yes, but Michigan's Allard invasion authority means the protection has limits. A prenup can designate a business as one party's separate property, specify a valuation method, and exclude the other spouse from ownership claims. However, if marital funds or the other spouse's labor contributed to the business's growth during the marriage, a divorce court could invoke MCL 552.401 to "invade" the business interest despite the prenup. Allard I (2014) illustrates the risk: the husband used LLCs to hold property, but the court held that assets acquired by those LLCs during the marriage were subject to equitable distribution because the prenup only protected property acquired "in his individual capacity." Precise drafting that covers entities, income, and appreciation — not just individually held assets — is critical.

‍

10. Can a prenup protect my inheritance in Michigan?

Inheritances are generally treated as separate property in Michigan, but they are not automatically safe. Under MCL 552.23(1), a divorce court can invade a spouse's separate property — including inherited assets — if the other spouse demonstrates need. Under MCL 552.401, invasion is permitted if the other spouse contributed to the property's growth. A prenup adds a contractual layer of protection by explicitly designating inherited assets as separate property and waiving the other spouse's invasion claims. But after Allard, even that contractual designation does not absolutely bind the court. To maximize protection for significant inheritances, consider combining a prenup with a Michigan Qualified Dispositions in Trust (QDOT) trust — assets held in a properly structured discretionary trust are generally beyond a divorce court's invasion reach under MCL 700.7505.

‍

11. What is equitable distribution and how does a Michigan prenup change it?

Michigan is an equitable distribution state, meaning a divorce court divides marital property "fairly" — not necessarily 50/50 — based on factors including marriage length, each spouse's contributions, earning capacity, and needs. Separate property (assets owned before marriage, gifts, and inheritances) is generally restored to the owner first, but can be "invaded" if equity requires it. A prenup changes this default by letting the parties define in advance which assets are separate, how marital property will be divided, and whether alimony will be paid. Without a prenup, all of these decisions are left to the judge's discretion. The catch in Michigan is that even with a prenup, the court retains its equitable invasion authority under Allard — so a prenup narrows judicial discretion but does not eliminate it.

‍

12. Can you get a prenup after marriage in Michigan?

No — by definition, a prenuptial agreement must be signed before the wedding. However, Michigan recognizes postnuptial agreements under Hodge v. Parks, 303 Mich. App. 552 (2014), which held that postnups are enforceable if they are intended to promote the marriage rather than anticipate divorce. Postnuptial agreements face stricter scrutiny than prenups because married spouses owe each other fiduciary duties. A postnup must be fair and reasonable, entered voluntarily, and must include provisions demonstrating intent to preserve the marriage (such as mandatory counseling or cooling-off periods). Skaates v. Kayser (2020) upheld a postnup signed one month after marriage where the parties had negotiated terms for 16 months before the wedding.

‍

13. What financial disclosure is required for a Michigan prenup?

Full and fair disclosure of all assets, debts, and income is required. Both parties should attach comprehensive financial statements (asset schedules, recent tax returns, account statements) as exhibits to the agreement. Failure to disclose — especially intentional concealment — is grounds for invalidation under Rinvelt factor (1). Michigan case law treats nondisclosure as a basis for voiding the entire agreement, not just the provisions related to the undisclosed asset. Unlike some UPAA states, Michigan does not allow parties to waive the right to disclosure. Err on the side of over-disclosure: listing every account, property interest, and debt eliminates the most common attack vector against enforceability.

‍

14. What is Michigan Senate Bill 160 and how could it change prenup law?

Senate Bill 160 would adopt the Uniform Premarital and Marital Agreements Act (UPMAA) in Michigan, replacing the current one-sentence statute (MCL 557.28) and Rinvelt case-law framework with a comprehensive statutory scheme. SB 160 passed the Michigan Senate on June 18, 2025, and is pending in the Michigan House as of 2026. If enacted, SB 160 would codify enforceability standards (writing, voluntary execution, disclosure), define duress more precisely (including late presentment before the wedding), and potentially clarify the scope of judicial override authority that Allard left uncertain. The bill would bring Michigan in line with the majority of states that have adopted some version of the Uniform Act. Until SB 160 becomes law, Michigan prenups remain governed by Rinvelt, Allard, and their progeny — making enforceability more judge-dependent than in most states.