Are prenuptial agreements enforceable in Washington?

Washington is a community-property state, which heightens judicial scrutiny of agreements that alter the default community/separate characterization.

1. Governing Statute / Common Law

RCW 26.16.120 authorizes spouses to enter into agreements regarding property. The controlling case law is In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479 (1986) and Friedlander v. Friedlander, 80 Wn.2d 293 (1972).

2. Formality Requirements

The agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. Notarization and acknowledgment are best practice. Marriage is the consideration.

3. Voluntariness

The Matson test asks whether the agreement was entered voluntarily, with full knowledge, and on full and fair disclosure. Procedural fairness includes adequate time, independent counsel access, and absence of duress.

4. Disclosure

Matson/Friedlander require full and fair disclosure of the assets, liabilities, and income of both parties. Failure to disclose substantial separate property or business interests typically invalidates the agreement.

5. Unconscionability / Substantive Fairness

Washington uses a two-step test: (1) substantively fair — does the agreement make a reasonable provision for the spouse not seeking enforcement?; if YES, enforce. (2) If substantively unfair, then enforce only if procedurally fair — full disclosure, independent counsel, voluntary execution. The community-property backdrop means courts scrutinize agreements that strip community-property rights.

6. What Cannot Be Waived

Child support and custody cannot be predetermined. Spousal maintenance can be addressed but Washington courts retain discretion under RCW 26.09.090.

7. Key Washington Case Law

Friedlander v. Friedlander (1972); In re Marriage of Matson (1986); In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895 (2009) (postnup distinctions and heightened scrutiny).

This is legal information, not legal advice.