Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries   Books

Connecticut Law About Premarital Agreements
These links connect to resources available and are provided with the understanding
that they represent only a starting point for research.

External Link - You are leaving the Connecticut Judicial Branch website This web page has many external links to valuable resources. Please view our Linkage Policy for more information.

Research Guides

  Connecticut General Statutes
Research guides prepared by the Connecticut Judicial Branch law librarians:

Legislative histories compiled by the Connecticut Judicial Branch law librarians:

Library Materials

Check with your local law library for availability.

  • Connecticut Family Law Citations: A Reference Guide to Connecticut Family Law Decisions, by Cynthia C. George

  • Connecticut Practice, Family Law and Practice with Forms, by Arnold H. Rutkin

    • Chapter 48: Premarital Agreements

  • Lindey on Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts, by Alexander Lindey And Louis I. Parley

 

Selected Statutes:

Recent Connecticut Case Law

The links to court opinions are for informational purposes only.

  • Bedrick v. Bedrick, 300 Conn. 691 (2011). We conclude that postnuptial agreements are valid and enforceable and generally must comply with contract principles. We also conclude, however, that the terms of such agreements must be both fair and equitable at the time of execution and not unconscionable at the time of dissolution.

  • Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153 (2010).
    The trial court determined that the antenuptial agreement was not governed by the provisions of the Connecticut Premarital Agreement Act (act), General Statutes 46b-36a et seq., presumably because the act applies only to antenuptial agreements entered into on or after October 1, 1995; General Statutes 46b-36a; and the parties had entered into their agreement on June 24, 1988. The trial court concluded, instead, that the antenuptial agreement was governed by the equitable rules established in
    McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn. 482, 436 A.2d 8 (1980).
     
  • Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166 (2007).
    Although 46b-36g does not expressly define "fair and reasonable" financial disclosure, a plain reading of the statute indicates that the term was intended to be understood in the context of the phrase that directly follows, namely, "the amount, character and value of property, financial obligations and income of the other party . . . " General Statutes 46b-36g (a) (3). Accordingly, "fair and reasonable" disclosure refers to the nature, extent and accuracy of the information to be disclosed, and not to extraneous factors such as the timing of the disclosure.

"Additionally, we do not believe that parties require a detailed understanding of Connecticut law on marriage and divorce to validly waive their statutory rights in a prenuptial agreement, nor is it necessary to have a college degree in order to understand the concept of net worth."

 Connecticut Law by Subject