NY Court’s Prenup Ruling Leaves More Questions Than Answers

Public policy often sways judicial outcomes. But what happens when a court juggles multiple and arguably competing public policies? A recent New York decision addressing prenuptial agreements may offer a window.

Prenups are contracts. In their simplest terms, prenups are legally binding agreements defining parties’ obligations and responsibilities. But prenups differ from standard contractual terms and conditions because they are personal. As personal agreements, prenups sit at a crossroads of multiple public policies. Public policy supports the idea that individuals are entitled to decide their own interests, protect their assets, and establish their financial responsibilities with voluntary agreements. On the flip side, New York public policy has historically favored fairness and equity when marriages dissolve.

In January, a New York court weighed these principles when a husband sought summary judgment, claiming that enforcement of his prenup would be unconscionable.

The facts of the case are instructive. Seven days before their wedding, the spouses signed a prenup. At the time, and throughout the marriage, the wife was the wealthier spouse. According to the husband, he wasn’t represented by counsel when he signed the agreement, and while he was told he could hire an attorney, he was also told that doing so was unnecessary. He claimed he signed under duress as he faced a take-it-or-leave-it situation where his future wife would’ve canceled the wedding if he refused to sign. The wife disputed those assertions and claimed she was willing to be married without a prenup if a postnuptial agreement was put in place after the wedding.

The court didn’t find any of those concerns sufficient to set aside the prenup, as they did not rise to the level of making the agreed-upon arrangement unconscionable. The court did, however, vacate one provision of the prenup, the waiver of spousal maintenance (also known as spousal support or alimony).

New York’s Domestic Relations Law provides a framework for calculating the presumptive maintenance, the amount of spousal maintenance generally awarded to the less-wealthy spouse upon dissolution of the marriage. Courts apply a formula based on the payor’s income, and when that income reaches a cap, weigh statutory factors, including the length of the marriage and the parties’ lifestyles and expenses. Parties who choose to do so may opt out of the statutory framework by addressing spousal maintenance in a prenuptial agreement. One or both parties can waive the right to maintenance in that agreement.

In the case before the New York court, the parties waived spousal maintenance in the prenup, and the question before the court was whether the husband’s waiver was valid. In this case of first impression, the court addressed whether an unrepresented spouse can waive spousal maintenance in a prenup if the prenup doesn’t include a presumptive maintenance calculation (the anticipated monetary amount of spousal maintenance based on the parties’ actual incomes at the time they entered into the prenup). Could he knowingly waive his right to a payment if he didn’t know the amount to which he would’ve otherwise been entitled under the statute?

The court found that he could not. Without knowing how much money he was waiving his right to receive, the husband could not “knowingly” waive his right to spousal support.

According to the court, for a prenuptial waiver of spousal maintenance by an unrepresented party to be valid, the prenup must include both parties’ incomes and the full calculations of support under the statutory formula. Including the statutory formula without the parties’ incomes is insufficient because it lacks the information needed to make an informed decision.

Essentially, it’s unfair to the unrepresented party to bar him from receiving support based on an “unknowing” waiver. Here, the public policy favoring fairness seemed to prevail over the public policy of enforcing voluntary agreements.

What this new decision means for future cases is unclear. One can imagine a similar case with both parties unrepresented. Would it be fair to invalidate a similar waiver in that instance? What if the payor were able to prove that the party seeking to void the waiver did, through some other means, know the exact calculation even though it was left out of the agreement? Would the waiver then be “knowing”? Or, what if the potential payee specifically noted in writing a desire not to know the calculations?

Uncertainties aside, this case reinforces best practices for entering into prenuptial agreements. Both parties should be represented by counsel, and statutory calculations must be explicitly spelled out in their entirety. Clients may request “short and simple” prenups, but prenups shouldn’t omit those calculations for the sake of simplicity.

The case is J.M. v. G.V., N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2025 BL 5367 (1/2/25).

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Sherri Sharma is partner at Mosberg, Sharma, Stambleck & Gross.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines