When Prenuptial Agreements Can Be Challenged Successfully

When Prenuptial Agreements Can Be Challenged Successfully

Prenuptial agreements are supposed to provide certainty—a clear roadmap for what happens if marriage ends in divorce. But in high net worth cases, these agreements are frequently challenged, and sometimes successfully set aside, when one spouse claims the agreement was unfair, improperly executed, or obtained through fraud or duress. Understanding when Texas courts will enforce prenuptial agreements and when they’ll invalidate them is critical for anyone who signed one or is considering challenging one.

If you signed a prenuptial agreement and are now facing divorce, understanding the grounds on which these agreements can be challenged—and the high burden required for successful challenges—is essential to protecting your financial interests.

Texas Law on Prenuptial Agreements

Texas has adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (with modifications), codified in Texas Family Code Chapter 4:

What prenups can cover (§ 4.003):

Rights and obligations in property (separate or community)
Rights to buy, sell, use, transfer, or control property
Disposition of property upon separation, divorce, or death
Spousal support modification or elimination
Making wills, trusts, or other arrangements
Ownership rights in life insurance
Choice of law governing the agreement

What prenups CANNOT cover:

Child support (void against public policy)
Child custody or visitation (court determines based on child’s best interest)
Anything promoting divorce or against public policy
Criminal or tortious conduct (can’t contract away right to prosecute domestic violence, for example)

Enforceability standard (§ 4.006): A prenuptial agreement is not enforceable if the party challenging it proves:

The party did not sign voluntarily, OR
The agreement was unconscionable when signed AND that party:
- Was not provided fair and reasonable disclosure of the other party’s property/financial obligations,
- Did not waive disclosure in writing, AND
- Did not have adequate knowledge of the property/obligations

This creates a two-part test for challenging prenups on substantive grounds.

Ground 1: Involuntariness

The most common successful challenge argues the agreement was not signed voluntarily:

What constitutes involuntariness?

Duress: Pressure, threats, or coercion that overcame free will.

Common duress scenarios:

“Sign this or the wedding is off” presented days or hours before the ceremony with 300 guests invited, venue booked, non-refundable deposits paid
Threats of harm, abandonment, or humiliation
Economic coercion (threatening to cut off financial support, kick out of home)
Emotional manipulation during vulnerable times

Undue influence: Taking advantage of position of trust or authority to pressure signing.

Examples:

Much older, sophisticated spouse pressuring younger, naive spouse
Exploiting emotional dependency or isolation
Using psychological manipulation

Courts consider totality of circumstances:

Time between presentment and signing (last-minute presentation suggests pressure)
Sophistication and bargaining power disparity between parties
Whether independent legal counsel was available
Whether there was time to review and consider
Evidence of pressure tactics or threats

Example of successful involuntariness challenge:

Case facts:

Bride, age 24, from another country, living with fiancé in US
Fiancé, age 52, wealthy businessman, presented prenup 2 days before elaborate wedding
200 guests traveling from abroad, $150,000 non-refundable deposits
Fiancé stated: “Sign this or the wedding is canceled, and you’ll be sent back to your country with nothing”
Bride had limited English, no independent attorney, no family in US to advise her
Signed the night before wedding after being told “it’s just a formality”

Court ruling: Agreement signed involuntarily under duress. The timing, disparity in power, threats, lack of independent counsel, and pressure created circumstances where bride had no meaningful choice.

Contrast: Proper execution:

Prenup presented 6 months before wedding
Both parties represented by independent attorneys
Full financial disclosure exchanged
Multiple drafts negotiated over 2 months
Both parties sophisticated business professionals
Each had time to review, consider, and negotiate terms
Signed 2 months before wedding

Court ruling: Agreement voluntary. Both parties had time, resources, and sophistication to make informed decisions.

The Timing Issue

When a prenup is presented affects voluntariness analysis:

Red flag timelines:

Presented on the wedding day: Extremely strong evidence of involuntariness
Presented 1-3 days before wedding: Strong evidence of duress
Presented 1-2 weeks before wedding: Significant red flag, especially with elaborate planning
Presented 1-3 months before wedding: Generally acceptable, though still scrutinized
Presented 6+ months before wedding: Strongly supports voluntariness

Texas courts have no bright-line rule on timing, but repeatedly emphasize that last-minute presentation undermines voluntariness, particularly when:

Substantial wedding preparations are complete and non-refundable
Guests have made travel arrangements
Social, familial, or cultural pressure to proceed exists
The less sophisticated party has no real choice but to sign or face humiliation

Best practice: Present prenuptial agreements at least 3-6 months before the wedding date, preferably when engagement is announced, to eliminate timing-based challenges.

Ground 2: Unconscionability Plus Lack of Disclosure

Even if signed voluntarily, an agreement can be challenged if it’s unconscionable AND proper disclosure wasn’t made:

What is unconscionability?

Texas courts define unconscionability as terms that are so one-sided and unfair that they “shock the conscience.”

Not merely unfavorable: The fact that an agreement heavily favors one party doesn’t alone make it unconscionable. Prenups often involve substantial compromises and unequal outcomes.

Shocking unfairness: Unconscionability requires extreme unfairness—typically leaving one spouse destitute while the other retains millions.

Examples of potentially unconscionable provisions:

Complete waiver by non-wealthy spouse:

Husband worth $50 million
Wife bringing $100,000 to marriage
Prenup states: “All property remains separate; no alimony; complete waiver of all community property rights”
After 25-year marriage where Wife was homemaker, she leaves with her original $100,000 while Husband retains everything
This might be unconscionable if she had no independent counsel, no real understanding of implications, and no meaningful assets after decades of marriage

Contrast: Negotiated compromise:

Husband worth $50 million (separate property)
Wife worth $2 million (separate property)
Prenup states: “Separate property remains separate; community property divided 60/40 favoring Husband; limited spousal support ($10,000/month for 5 years max)”
After 15-year marriage, Wife receives $10 million community property share plus support
Likely not unconscionable: Though unequal, Wife receives substantial assets and support

The key: Unconscionability is evaluated at the time of signing, not at divorce. Was the agreement so unfair at execution that no reasonable person would sign it absent duress, fraud, or lack of understanding?

Disclosure Requirements

For unconscionable agreements to be enforceable, proper disclosure must have occurred:

Texas requires (§ 4.006):

Fair and reasonable disclosure of the other party’s property and financial obligations, OR
Written waiver of disclosure, OR
The challenging party had or reasonably should have had adequate knowledge

What constitutes adequate disclosure?

Full disclosure includes:

List of all significant assets with approximate values
Income information (salary, bonuses, investment income)
Liabilities and debts
Financial obligations (support obligations, business liabilities)
Beneficial interests in trusts
Expected inheritances (if material)

Inadequate disclosure examples:

Vague statements like “I’m worth about $20 million” when actually worth $100 million
Omitting major assets (entire companies, real estate holdings, offshore accounts)
Understating values by 50%+
Hiding assets or debts
Providing disclosure in overly technical form that non-sophisticated party cannot understand

Example of successful challenge based on inadequate disclosure:

Case facts:

Fiancé stated he was “worth about $5 million”
Prenup attached schedule showing $5.2 million in assets
After divorce, discovery revealed he was worth $45 million
Schedule omitted: three companies, $15 million in real estate, $20 million in offshore accounts, $8 million in brokerage accounts

Court ruling: Prenup unconscionable (leaving Wife with nothing from 20-year marriage) AND inadequate disclosure. Agreement set aside. Full disclosure would have revealed much greater wealth and might have resulted in different terms.

Independent Legal Counsel

While Texas doesn’t absolutely require independent attorneys, their absence significantly undermines enforceability:

Benefits of independent counsel:

Demonstrates voluntariness (person had advice and wasn’t pressured)
Shows party understood terms and implications
Provides opportunity to negotiate and advocate
Creates record of informed decision-making

Courts are highly skeptical of agreements where:

Wealthy party had experienced attorney
Less wealthy party had no attorney or used same attorney (conflict of interest)
Terms heavily favor the represented party
Unrepresented party claims lack of understanding

Example:

Husband (age 60, worth $80M) had prominent family law attorney draft prenup
Wife (age 28, first marriage, limited assets) had no attorney
Husband told Wife: “My attorney says this is standard; just sign it”
Agreement waived all community property rights and spousal support
Wife signed without legal advice

Court ruling: Strong evidence supporting involuntariness and lack of understanding. Combined with timing issues (3 days before wedding), court set aside agreement.

Best practice: Each party should have independent legal counsel, preferably experienced in family law and prenuptial agreements, who reviews, explains, and negotiates on their behalf.

Fraud and Misrepresentation

Agreements obtained through fraud or material misrepresentation can be set aside:

Common fraud scenarios:

Concealed assets: Intentionally hiding significant wealth, businesses, or property during prenup negotiations.

False statements: Lying about financial condition, intentions, or circumstances.

Example:

Fiancé stated he was “temporarily between jobs” and had “modest savings”
Actually had $10 million in investments producing $500K annual income
Prenup waived alimony based on “both parties being similarly situated financially”
Court ruling: Fraud. Had Wife known true financial situation, she wouldn’t have waived alimony.

Promises not kept: Making promises to induce signing, then reneging.

Example:

Husband told Wife: “Sign this now; we’ll renegotiate after a few years when you’re more comfortable”
Repeatedly promised to revise or eliminate prenup
Never did so; used prenup to minimize Wife’s settlement in divorce
Court ruling: Some courts have found fraud or promissory estoppel in such cases, though results vary.

The Sunrise/Sunset Clause Defense

Some prenups include provisions that modify or terminate over time:

Common structures:

Sunset clauses: Prenup expires after X years of marriage (often 10-20 years).

Graduated provisions: Terms become more favorable to lower-earning spouse over time.

Example:

Prenup waives alimony for first 5 years
After 5 years, $5,000/month alimony for 3 years
After 10 years, $10,000/month for 5 years
After 20 years, prenup provisions largely waived and default law applies

These provisions reduce successful challenges because they address the unfairness that can result from applying harsh prenup terms to long marriages.

Changed Circumstances

Courts generally don’t invalidate prenups due to changed circumstances after signing, but extreme changes may support other challenges:

Generally not grounds alone:

Parties became much wealthier than anticipated
One spouse’s financial situation changed dramatically
Children were born (unless prenup prohibits modifying this factor)

But extreme changes can support other arguments:

Example:

At signing, both parties were healthy, employed professionals
During marriage, Wife became severely disabled in accident
Prenup waived all alimony
Wife now unable to work, minimal assets, facing poverty
Husband worth $40 million

Court might set aside agreement based on:

Unconscionability (now, given changed circumstances, enforcement would be unconscionable)
Public policy (leaving disabled spouse destitute)
However, Texas courts generally still enforce the prenup’s terms unless it violates a specific statute

Texas courts have been relatively strict: Absent specific statutory violations, changed circumstances don’t typically void prenups, though courts may find ways to avoid unjust outcomes.

Technical Defects in Execution

Procedural problems can invalidate prenups:

Statute of Frauds requirement (§ 4.002): Prenuptial agreements must be in writing and signed by both parties. Oral prenups are void.

Proper execution: Both parties must sign. Missing signatures or unsigned pages create problems.

Acknowledgment/notarization: While not technically required in Texas, absence of notarization can raise questions about authenticity or signing date.

Incomplete agreements: If essential terms are left blank, marked “TBD,” or so vague they’re unenforceable, courts may void the agreement.

Example:

Prenup states: “Alimony shall be determined by agreement of the parties or court”
This is essentially no different than default law; provision is meaningless
Court might find the provision void for vagueness

Public Policy Violations

Prenups cannot violate public policy:

Void provisions:

Child support waivers: Cannot waive child support; void as against public policy.

Child custody provisions: Cannot predetermine custody; courts decide based on child’s best interest at time of divorce.

Promoting divorce: Provisions that encourage or reward divorce are void.

Example of void provision: “If Husband engages in adultery, Wife receives $10 million and Husband waives all property rights.”

This might be seen as:

Penalty clause promoting divorce (void)
However, some courts uphold infidelity clauses as reflecting parties’ values

Texas courts have mixed views on infidelity clauses and other conduct-based provisions.

The “Second Look” Doctrine

Some states apply a “second look” doctrine—reviewing whether enforcement would be unconscionable at the time of divorce, not just at signing. Texas has not formally adopted this approach but occasionally considers current circumstances in extreme cases.

Example where “second look” might apply:

Prenup signed 30 years ago when both parties were young professionals
Wife gave up career to raise four children and support Husband’s career
Husband now worth $100 million (due largely to Wife’s domestic support)
Prenup waives all alimony and limits Wife to $500,000 settlement
Enforcement would leave Wife destitute after 30-year marriage

Some courts might:

Find unconscionability based on current circumstances
Apply equitable estoppel or public policy
Interpret ambiguous provisions against drafter
Though Texas has generally not formally recognized “second look”

Postnuptial Agreements and Modification

Archives

Latest Updates

Categories