Can Prenups Be Challenged in Court?
Yes, a prenuptial agreement can be challenged in Washington, and courts do refuse to enforce agreements that fail the state's fairness standards. Understanding the grounds for a challenge is the best way to build an agreement that will actually hold, or to recognize when an existing one might not. For a focused explanation, read what Happens to Prenups in Other States.
A Prenup Is Not Automatically Bulletproof
Many couples assume that once a prenuptial agreement is signed and notarized, it is untouchable. That is not how Washington works. A signed prenup is a serious document that courts take seriously, but it is not immune from scrutiny. When one spouse asks a court to set an agreement aside, usually during a divorce, the court will examine how the agreement was made and what it actually says. If the agreement falls short, a judge can decline to enforce it in whole or in part.
Washington has no single statute governing prenuptial agreements. Instead, the rules come from case law, principally two Washington Supreme Court decisions: In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479 (1986), and In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895 (2009). Together these cases set out the analysis a court uses when a prenup is challenged. Knowing that framework tells you exactly where agreements tend to break down.
The Two-Prong Fairness Test
Washington courts use a two-prong analysis to decide whether a prenup is valid. The first prong is substantive fairness. The court asks whether the agreement makes a fair and reasonable provision for the spouse who is not seeking to enforce it. If the agreement is substantively fair, the analysis can end there and the agreement stands.
If the agreement is not substantively fair to that spouse, the court moves to the second prong, which is procedural fairness. Here the court asks two questions: whether the spouses made a full disclosure of the amount, character, and value of the property involved, and whether the agreement was freely entered into on independent advice from counsel with full knowledge by both spouses of their rights. This structure matters because it explains something people often miss. An agreement that looks lopsided on paper can still be enforced if it was made the right way, with full disclosure and independent counsel. The Bernard decision reinforced this framework, applying the same substantive and procedural analysis to test a prenup's enforceability.
In other words, a one-sided deal is not automatically invalid. It is a one-sided deal made without disclosure, without independent advice, or under pressure that gives a court real grounds to step in.
Grounds for Challenging a Prenup
Drawing on Matson and Bernard, the common grounds for challenging a Washington prenup fall into a few recognizable categories.
The first is substantive unfairness paired with a lack of procedural fairness. If the agreement leaves one spouse with an unreasonable and inequitable outcome, and it was also entered into without full disclosure or independent advice, both prongs point toward invalidity. Substantive unfairness alone may not be enough, but combined with procedural problems it is a strong basis to challenge.
The second is lack of full disclosure. If one spouse hid assets, understated their net worth, or failed to reveal significant debts or property, the other spouse cannot be said to have knowingly agreed to anything. Full disclosure of the amount, character, and value of the property is a core requirement, and its absence is a classic ground for challenge.
The third is the absence of independent counsel. When one spouse had a lawyer and the other did not, or both relied on the same attorney, courts question whether the unrepresented spouse truly understood what they were signing and whether their interests were protected. In Matson, the wife's reasonable but mistaken belief that her husband's attorney was looking out for her, combined with the lack of independent advice, was central to the court voiding the agreement.
The fourth is coercion or last-minute signing. An agreement presented on the eve of the wedding, with no meaningful time to review it or consult a lawyer, raises serious questions about whether it was freely entered into. In Bernard, the timing was a major problem: the husband's side worked on the agreement for months, then sent a first draft only eighteen days before the wedding and a substantially different draft just three days before. That kind of pressure and last-minute change is exactly what undermines procedural fairness.
What This Means If You Already Have a Prenup
If you signed a prenup and now wonder whether it would hold up, the honest answer is that it depends on how it was made. Ask yourself whether both of you disclosed your full finances, whether each of you had your own attorney, whether you had real time to review the agreement, and whether the terms make a reasonable provision for both spouses. Strength on those points makes an agreement hard to unwind. Weakness on several of them opens the door to a challenge.
The same analysis works in reverse if you are still drafting. Build the agreement with full transparency, give both people plenty of time, make sure each spouse has independent counsel, and aim for terms that a court would see as reasonable. An agreement built this way is far more likely to survive scrutiny, which is the whole point of having one.
Getting It Right in Snohomish County
Whether you are considering a prenup, already have one, or are facing a divorce where an agreement is in dispute, the fairness framework from Matson and Bernard is the lens a Washington court will use. Knowing it lets you plan wisely instead of hoping for the best.
If you have questions about drafting a durable prenup or challenging one in Snohomish County, the Law Office of Chad Foster can help you understand where you stand. Reach out to discuss your situation.
Need help with a divorce or family law matter in King or Snohomish County? Learn about our divorce, custody, and support services, or call 425.785.8679 for a consultation.