Prenuptial agreements should provide clarity and security for soon-to-be married couples. However, they can become a source of problems and litigation during a divorce if not done correctly. The recent 2025 New York Supreme Court decision in JM v. GV declares that New York courts will now closely scrutinize waivers of spousal maintenance (alimony) and other provisions.

Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine’s ruling in JM v. GV explains that a valid waiver in a prenuptial agreement requires more than a general acknowledgment of rights. It requires a knowing, concrete waiver, supported by clear calculations and explicit numbers, as required by the Domestic Relations Law (DRL). In other words, if you waive alimony in New York now, you must now include what the person waiving would have received in alimony had they not signed the waiver, using the state’s formula for calculating this number, which includes incomes. 

Family law attorneys in New York should re-examine how they draft prenuptial agreements to ensure compliance with the new explanation of what constitutes a “knowing” waiver under the DRL. There should be a focus on income disclosures, alimony calculations, severability clauses, unambiguous equitable distribution provisions, and reasons for deviations from such. 

JM v. GV case summary

In JM v. GV, the Supreme Court heard a case involving a couple who signed a prenuptial agreement one week before their wedding and tied the knot in May 2018. The wife was a pharmacist and had a lawyer represent her for the prenup, while the husband (a photographer) did not have a lawyer. Several years later, in 2023, the wife filed for divorce. The husband asked the court to throw out the prenup, stating it was unfair and overreaching, that he had no lawyer, the terms were one-sided, and he didn’t understand what he was waiving, namely, the spousal maintenance waiver.

The outcome? Justice Sunshine partially agreed with the husband and struck down the alimony waiver because, as he explained, the husband lacked legal representation and had not truly understood the rights he was giving up. The court made clear that for a waiver to be valid, it must be “knowing,” which means it cannot be abstract or generalized, as many waivers are. Instead, the agreement must show the parties’ actual incomes and apply the statutory maintenance formula to produce an exact number. Only when that calculated figure is laid out can an unrepresented party make an informed choice to waive the right.

Justice Sunshine stressed that both spouses must disclose their earnings and include a complete statutory calculation at the time the prenuptial agreement is signed. Without those details, the parties have no clear benchmark of what maintenance would have been, and therefore any purported waiver would not meet the statutory requirement of being a “knowing” relinquishment.

On the other hand, Justice Sunshine upheld the rest of the agreement thanks to the severability clause and also upheld the waiver of equitable distribution, which, in his opinion, was clear and unambiguous. 

Alimony waivers: How to draft a prenup according to JM v. GV

In light of JM v. GV, a spousal-maintenance waiver in New York will survive scrutiny only if the record demonstrates a genuinely “knowing” relinquishment at execution. This means actual incomes and concrete numbers must be included with the waiver. This also includes setting out the maintenance calculation laid out by Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(6) using those figures (including the inputs, cap, and computed result). This should be followed by an express acknowledgement that the waiving spouse understands the statutory formula and intentionally waives the resulting entitlement. 

The waiver should also articulate a brief, case-specific rationale for deviating from the guideline amount (e.g., the parties’ mutual financial independence, alternative asset allocations, or a negotiated lump-sum framework) and include an affirmation that enforcement will not render either spouse a public charge, consistent with General Obligations Law § 5-311. 

To evidence informed consent, require page-by-page initials or a notarial acknowledgement tied to the maintenance provision; where a party is self-represented, add a separate certification that the guideline calculation was reviewed and understood. Attaching schedules such as W-2s/1099s, year-to-date pay stubs, and a plain-English summary of the presumptive amount and likely duration further strengthens the record. 

Absent these disclosures, acknowledgments, and reasons for deviation, a court may deem the waiver not “knowing” and sever or refuse to enforce it, notwithstanding otherwise valid contractual formalities under § 236(B)(3).

Severability: Preserving A Prenup’s Integrity

Justice Sunshine in JM v. GV threw out the invalid maintenance waiver while leaving the rest of the prenuptial agreement enforceable. He specifically pointed to the severability clause that allowed him to do this. This allowed the other parts of the agreement, such as the equitable distribution waiver, to be upheld. This is an incredibly important reminder to all family law attorneys, in any state, not just New York, that severability clauses play an essential role in prenuptial agreements. Without them, the invalidation of a single provision could unravel an entire agreement.

Equitable Distribution Waivers: Upheld if Clear and Unambiguous

Unlike the alimony waiver in JM v. GV, the property waiver provisions of the agreement were not thrown out by Justice Sunshine. Instead, the court upheld these waivers of equitable distribution, which ultimately limited marital property to property held in joint title, finding that the language was clear and unambiguous. 

Under New York’s DRL § 236(B), the default rule for property division in a divorce is that anything acquired during the marriage is “marital property” to be divided, unless the spouses agree otherwise in a valid prenup. In this case, the prenup explicitly opted out of that default by saying that only property held in both names counted as marital, but property titled in one spouse’s name stays that person’s separate property. In this case, the wife bought a condo during the marriage and titled it only in her name. According to their enforceable agreement, the condo remains hers alone at divorce since only jointly titled assets (like a house or account in both names) go into the marital pot. The court found that language clear and unambiguous, so it enforced it.

The outcome of the equitable distribution waiver and the spousal maintenance waiver in this agreement hinges on the fact that the DRL requires a “knowing” waiver of spousal maintenance, whereas the DRL requires only a clear, duly executed, and acknowledged opt-out to reallocate property rights.

The JM v. GV case reinforces what should now be considered the best practice for drafting prenups in New York—When waiving equitable distribution rights, the agreement must clearly state how DRL §236 would otherwise apply and state exactly which rights are being waived. By way of example, in JM v. GV, the prenup expressly stated that “marital property” included jointly titled assets and also declared that any asset titled in one spouse’s sole name would remain that spouse’s separate property. This was enough for the court to determine that the agreement was clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, the wife’s solely titled real estate purchased during the marriage was excluded from equitable distribution, and the waiver was enforced.

JM v. GV, 225 N.Y.S.3d 859 (2025)