## Facts

- Kathy Williams (plaintiff) and Claude Williams (defendant) married in 1984.
- Before the wedding, they executed a premarital (prenuptial) agreement.
- The agreement included a provision in which each spouse waived any right to receive spousal support (maintenance) if the marriage ended in divorce.
- The relationship deteriorated, and in January 1986 Claude moved out of the marital home.
- Kathy filed for dissolution of marriage and requested spousal maintenance despite the waiver.
- Claude opposed the request, relying on the premarital agreement’s support waiver.
- The trial court awarded Kathy spousal maintenance, reasoning that (1) premarital waivers of spousal maintenance were per se void as against public policy, and (2) Kathy could not meet her reasonable needs through appropriate employment.
- Claude appealed from the decree of dissolution and the maintenance award.

## Issues

1. Whether a premarital agreement provision waiving spousal maintenance is automatically void as against public policy in Arizona.
2. If such waivers are not automatically void, whether and when a court may refuse to enforce a spousal-maintenance waiver at dissolution based on public policy and the parties’ circumstances.
3. Whether the waiver in the Williamses’ premarital agreement barred Kathy’s claim for spousal maintenance on these facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s categorical rule that premarital spousal-maintenance waivers are per se void as against public policy.
- The court held that premarital agreements may include spousal-maintenance waivers, but enforcement is not automatic; a court must consider public-policy limits at the time of dissolution.
- The court concluded that a waiver will not be enforced when enforcement would leave a spouse without reasonable support or would otherwise conflict with the policies reflected in Arizona’s spousal-maintenance statute (including avoiding a result that would make the spouse a public charge).
- Applying that standard, the court upheld the maintenance award to Kathy because the trial court found she was unable to support her reasonable needs through appropriate employment, making enforcement of the waiver improper under public policy.
- The judgment awarding spousal maintenance was affirmed, although the appellate court rejected the trial court’s “per se void” rationale.

## Legal Principles

- Premarital agreements are generally enforceable when entered voluntarily and without fraud, duress, or overreaching.
- A premarital waiver of spousal maintenance is not automatically invalid merely because it addresses support upon divorce.
- Enforceability of a spousal-maintenance waiver is tested at the time of dissolution as well as at formation; a court may deny effect to the waiver if enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
- Public policy limits enforcement where applying the waiver would leave a spouse unable to meet reasonable needs through appropriate employment or would otherwise defeat the statutory purposes of spousal maintenance (including preventing the spouse from becoming a public charge).
- A court may therefore refuse to enforce a maintenance waiver even when the agreement was validly executed, if the dissolution-time circumstances show that enforcement would produce an unacceptable result under Arizona law.

## Conclusion

*Marriage of Williams* held that premarital spousal-maintenance waivers in Arizona are not per se void, but they are subject to a dissolution-time public-policy review; because the trial court found Kathy could not meet her reasonable needs through appropriate employment, the Court of Appeals allowed the maintenance award to stand notwithstanding the waiver.


Marriage of Williams, 166 Ariz. 260, 801 P.2d 495 (1990)