California Family Code § 1610 – Definitions Under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act

Overview

California Family Code Section 1610 defines the basic terms used in the state’s Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Specifically, it explains what a “premarital agreement” is and what qualifies as “property” for the purposes of such agreements.

A premarital agreement is a written contract made between two people who are planning to marry. It only becomes effective once they are legally married.

Property is defined broadly. It includes any legal or equitable interest, whether present or future, vested or contingent, in both real (land, buildings) and personal (money, belongings) property. This includes income and earnings.

Examples

• Example 1: John and Maria create a written agreement before marriage stating that any income earned during marriage will remain the separate property of the person who earned it. Under § 1610, this agreement is a valid premarital agreement and the income is considered “property.”
• Example 2: Lisa owns a home before marriage. Her premarital agreement with Tim states that the house remains hers after marriage. Because the house is a present interest in real property, it is clearly covered by the definition of “property” under § 1610.
• Example 3: A couple agrees that any future inheritance either person receives will remain their separate property. Even though the inheritance is not yet received, § 1610 allows it to be included in the agreement as a future contingent interest.

Case Law Examples

• Last v. Superior Court (2023) – The California Court of Appeal (4th Dist.) dealt with a premarital agreement that waived spousal support. The court explained that such waivers are not automatically enforced unless the agreement satisfies specific requirements (found in § 1615(c)), which include certain written findings of voluntariness. In Last, the trial court had not made the required findings under § 1615(c) that the prenup was entered into voluntarily, so the court treated the waiver as unenforceable for purposes of awarding temporary support. This case shows how a premarital agreement (as defined by § 1610) can still be invalidated if procedures (from § 1615) aren’t followed.
• In re Marriage of Bonds (2000) – Another California Supreme Court case about a premarital agreement. Here the issue was whether one spouse’s lack of independent legal counsel at signing made the agreement invalid. The Court held that an agreement (as defined by § 1610) isn’t automatically void just because one spouse had no independent lawyer. Instead, the enforceability is determined by § 1615 factors. The court said subjecting the agreement to special “strict scrutiny” was inconsistent with the Act, which generally enforces voluntarily made agreements. This case shows that the simple fact of no counsel does not change the definition of a premarital agreement under § 1610, and such agreements are judged by the usual statutory rules.
• In re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman (2000) – In this California Supreme Court case, spouses had signed a premarital agreement waiving spousal support. The court discussed § 1610’s definition, noting that a premarital agreement is “an agreement between prospective spouses made in contemplation of marriage”. The court also summarized § 1612, which lets couples contract about “the rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired”. This shows that § 1610’s definitions form the foundation: once an agreement falls under this definition, courts will enforce it under the rules of the Act. (Pendleton & Fireman ultimately held that a waiver of spousal support wasn’t per se unenforceable, meaning the spouses could validly include it in their premarital agreement.)
• Sturm v. Moyer (2019) – In this published Court of Appeal case, a judgment creditor challenged a premarital agreement that left each spouse’s future earnings as separate property. The court explicitly cited § 1610(a)’s definition, stating that at the time the agreement was signed (before marriage), neither spouse had any rights in community property. The court then reasoned that on the date of marriage, each spouse immediately acquires community property rights, which then “immediately transfer” back to separate property under the agreement. In other words, the agreement – defined by § 1610 – restructures property ownership once marriage occurs. The court’s analysis illustrates how § 1610’s timing (“effective upon marriage”) affects when and how property is deemed transferred under a premarital agreement.

 

Full Text of Family Code § 1610

(a) “Premarital agreement” means an agreement between prospective spouses made in contemplation of marriage and to be effective upon marriage.

(b) “Property” means an interest, present or future, legal or equitable, vested or contingent, in real or personal property, including income and earnings.

*Nothing on this page should be considered legal advice. This is simply a summary of information found on the Internet. Use at your own risk. This information has not been evaluated by an attorney, and it may be incorrect or obsolete due to changes in the law.