Oklahoma: C
Statutes
Oklahoma Statutes Title 15, Section 136 (Statute of Frauds)
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
Oklahoma reviews prenuptial agreements for unconscionability both at execution (signing) AND at enforcement (divorce), meaning courts can reject or modify agreements if circumstances change during marriage. This incentivizes divorce and litigation.
Unconscionability Standard—The Burgess Test
A prenup is unenforceable if the challenging party proves: (1) involuntary execution due to fraud, duress, or coercion; OR (2) failure of the "Burgess Test"—which requires either (a) fair and reasonable provision for the challenging spouse, (b) full, fair, and frank financial disclosure, OR (c) generally accurate knowledge of the other's worth.
Spousal Support Public Assistance Minimum
Courts may override spousal support waivers if enforcement would make one party eligible for public assistance at separation or divorce. However, courts can only require support "to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility"—they cannot easily 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.
Financial Disclosure
"Full, fair, and frank" disclosure of all assets, debts, income, and financial interests required. Disclose all assets $1,000+ and income. However, if the challenging party had "generally accurate knowledge" of the other's worth, courts may still enforce the agreement despite disclosure imperfections (Griffin v. Griffin upheld prenup with significant asset valuation discrepancies).
High Burden to Challenge
Challenging party must prove fraud or misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence (higher standard than “preponderance” threshold). Oklahoma courts are "pro-prenup" and call fraud "extremely hard to prove" and "exceedingly rare."
Child Support and Custody
Child support and custody clauses are unenforceable and could undermine the entire agreement. Do not include.
Case Law
Taylor v. Taylor, 832 P.2d 429 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991)
The court upheld the prenuptial agreement's provisions denying wife alimony and division of husband's separate property, but reversed the trial court's refusal to award wife a share of the increased value of the marital estate attributable to the joint efforts of the parties during the ten-year marriage.
In re Marriage of Neundorf, 131 P.3d 142 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006)
The court upheld the trial court's award of alimony in lieu of property division to wife where she had contributed substantial separate funds ($194,000, $50,850, and $97,500) to purchase three farms during the marriage that husband claimed as his separate property under the prenuptial agreement.
Francis v. Francis, 285 P.3d 707 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012)
The court partially affirmed and partially reversed the trial court's interpretation of a prenuptial agreement provision requiring husband to be responsible for wife's "care" upon her disability, ultimately reducing the support award from the trial court's $4,225 per month based on the proper construction of the agreement's terms.
Griffin v. Griffin, 94 P.3d 96 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004)
The court reversed the trial court and upheld the prenuptial agreement where husband had disclosed assets valued at $2.5 million on an income tax basis (actual fair market value was estimated at $12-29 million for certain assets), finding wife had generally accurate knowledge of husband's wealth after dating over a year and knowing about his family's television stations and food business, despite her claims of fraud and inadequate financial disclosure.
Matter of Estate of Burgess, 646 P.2d 623 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982)
The court upheld the prenuptial agreement despite the lack of specific fair provisions for wife and disparity in wealth between the spouses, establishing the three-part "Burgess Test" still used today: (1) was fair provision made for the challenging spouse, (2) if not, was there full financial disclosure, or (3) if not, did the challenging spouse have generally accurate knowledge of the other's worth.
Metcalf v. Metcalf, 465 P.3d 1187 (Okla. 2020)
While this Oklahoma Supreme Court case primarily addressed interspousal property transfers and the presumption of gifts (holding that the presumption cannot be rebutted with evidence that the transfer was made to defraud creditors), it also affirmed the trial court's denial of support alimony to wife and provides important context on factors Oklahoma courts consider in alimony determinations that prenuptial agreements can waive or modify.