- Introduction
On July 2, 2026, an Ohio Court of Appeals decision, A.M. v. J.M, reaffirmed a framework that subjects spousal support waivers in marital agreements to a two-prong review. The agreement must be enforceable when it is signed, but Ohio also requires that the spousal support provision remain conscionable at the time of the divorce. This can lead to situations, such as in this case, in which a couple voluntarily and validly agrees to waive spousal support at the time of signing their marital agreement, only for that waiver to be invalid years later, due to one spouse’s financial circumstances drastically changing, rendering the agreement unconscionable. For practitioners, this case is a reminder that the spousal support waiver is subject to scrutiny upon signing, but also at the time of divorce. Drafting such provisions with future circumstances in mind is imperative.
- Facts
A.M. and J.M. were married in August of 2015, and had two children. In September 2020, the husband filed for divorce. The couple had signed a premarital agreement, which included a waiver of spousal support. The wife later claimed that the waiver was unconscionable and thus invalid at the time of divorce, and requested that she be awarded spousal support. While the divorce was being reviewed, the court issued a temporary support order which required the husband to pay a monthly cost of $5,755 for the wife’s living expenses. At the time of divorce, the wife was unemployed and had no alternate form of income. She had earned her bachelor’s and master’s degree and had previously owned an art gallery that made no money. The husband, on the other hand, had what the court described as “almost unlimited funds” at his disposal. The trial court found that denying spousal support to the wife, despite a valid waiver, would be unconscionable. After making findings under each factor in the R.C. 3105.18 (C)(1), the court ordered that the husband pay spousal support for the marital residence’s mortgage, real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance until the wife had received her property division payment in full. All of this was subject to a grace period for the wife to find alternative housing.
- Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether a spousal support waiver that was valid at the time of signing could still be set aside if enforcing it would be considered unconscionable at the time of divorce. To do this, the court began with Ohio law that subjects prenuptial agreements to a two-stage review, when attempting to determine the validity of spousal support waivers. The first stage examines the environment under which the agreement was originally signed, and the second asks whether the waiver is considered conscionable at the time of divorce. The husband argued that, because the waiver was mutual and voluntary, as well as properly executed with the assistance of counsel, it should be enforced as written, regardless of how their financial situations may differ. The wife argued that her circumstances changed so drastically that enforcement would be unconscionable. She was unemployed, had no independent income, and would have no means of support.
- Court Analysis
The court applied Ohio’s established framework under Gross v. Gross, which requires that prenuptial agreements involving spousal support be reviewed using two stages of review:
1. Validity at execution, and
2. Conscionability at the time of divorce.
The first stage, entailing that the agreement must be signed freely and without fraud or duress, was not an issue in this case. The second stage was found to be violated. Ohio’s R.C. 3105.18 (C) codifies this principle and provides that spousal support provisions in a prenuptial agreement will not be binding if they are proven to be unconscionable at the time of divorce.
When reviewing the second stage in the context of this case, the court found that, at the time of divorce, the wife’s financial positioning made the spousal support waiver unconscionable. The court found that, given the wealth disparity between the two, enforcing the spousal support waiver would leave the wife with no means of support, and was therefore considered unconscionable.
In affirming, however, the appellate court did not independently endorse the trial court’s finding of unconscionability, but instead noted the husband’s inability to refute such claims. Although he properly identified R.C. 3105.18 (C)(1) as the governing standard, he failed to challenge any of the trial court’s findings regarding the financial disparities between the two. On appeal, he stressed that his wife had received roughly four years of temporary support during a five-year marriage, and thus had ample time to find employment. This argument was found to be too general, and thus insufficient. Finding no abuse of discretion, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
- Practical Implications
A.M. v. J.M serves as a practical reminder that spousal support waivers in Ohio are not made enforceable simply by signing them. Even if the conditions of signing are valid, the provision must pass through a second prong of examination, to ensure that the results of divorce will be conscionable. Unlike property division in marital agreements, which is generally enforced as written, given proper signing circumstances, spousal support waivers are subject to additional scrutiny. Practitioners should take note of this and advise their clients of the risks that come with signing a spousal support waiver.
Practitioners drafting marital agreements in Ohio should question the most practical and successful way to structure spousal support provisions to increase the likelihood of their validity withstanding both prongs of review. Generally, spousal support provisions should contain accommodations for changed circumstances, such as a graduated support based on the length of marriage or aid if one partner becomes ill or disabled. Provisions that demonstrate that the parties have contemplated future adaptations if circumstances change are more likely to surpass that second prong of review than a flat mutual waiver with no accommodation.
- Conclusion
A.M. v. J.M reaffirms Ohio’s two-stage framework for reviewing spousal support provisions in marital agreements and provides that, even given proper signing environments, support waivers may not be enforced if they are found unconscionable at the time of divorce. Changing financial circumstances, especially ones in which a large wealth disparity exists, can invalidate a spousal support waiver entirely. For practitioners, this case is a reminder of the importance of transparency when it comes to formulating spousal support waivers. It is imperative that clients are aware that these waivers are not automatically enforceable, just because they were properly formulated and agreed upon.