Prenups are supposed to provide clarity and protection. They’re contracts couples enter with the intention to define who gets what, what debts are shared, and what happens if situations in life change. But as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reminded us in In re Marriage of Rudie, not all prenups deliver as expected, especially when they’re built on generic forms and lack rigorous legal attention. When Mary Ann and Kevin Rudie used a free online prenup form, the Court warns that fairness, disclosure, and voluntariness are not optional checkboxes (In re Marriage of Rudie (2024)). They are the pillars of enforceability.
What happened in the Rudie case
Mary Ann Rudie purchased a house after her divorce in 2014, using the settlement proceeds; she paid $240,000 in cash. When she later married Kevin, she used an online form to draft a prenup stating that this house remained entirely hers, that Kevin would pay half of the bills, including property taxes, until the house was sold, and that proceeds from any sale would go to Mary Ann. Kevin moved in, an accident left him with medical debt, and Mary Ann took on debt and financial obligation to cover that, including mortgaging the home.
When the couple later divorced, Kevin asked the court to nullify both the prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. The circuit court agreed, finding them unenforceable. On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Wisconsin’s law that a “marital property agreement” must be equitable under three requirements: 1) fair and reasonable financial disclosure, 2) voluntary entrance into the agreement, and 3) fairness of the substantive terms. Mary Ann’s prenup failed on all three. The court found that Kevin hadn’t been given a clear disclosure of Mary Ann’s finances and that he signed under pressure. She asked him to sign, and he didn’t have a real opportunity to negotiate or review with separate counsel. The court also found that the agreement was substantively unfair. An example of this last point was that he paid half the bills but received nothing from the house sale.
Legal principles that made the agreement invalid
What Rudie illustrates very clearly is the legal standards many states follow when evaluating marital property agreements. In Wisconsin, for example, under Section 766.58(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a marital property agreement, whether made before or during marriage, is not enforceable if any of the following are true: the agreement was unconscionable when made, one party did not execute it voluntarily, or there was not fair and reasonable disclosure of financial status (Wis. Stat. § 766.58(6)). Also, under state precedent, courts require those same three components: disclosure, voluntariness, and equity in the terms (Button v. Button (1986)).
Because the Rudies’ document was drafted from a generic online form rather than through attorney guidance, the form didn’t ensure those pieces were present. Kevin lacked knowledge of Mary Ann’s full assets and liabilities. He signed under circumstances that showed pressure, not reflective negotiation. The terms favored Mary Ann so heavily, because there was no possibility of him benefiting from the house or its sale, that the court found them arbitrary rather than fair. This is especially problematic because forms don’t always accommodate individual circumstances like health events, debt burdens, or uneven financial power. Rudie shows how important it is that agreements be tailored to the couple, not templated for everyone.
What this teaches about using free prenup forms
Free online prenup forms are appealing because they’re cheap and accessible. But these benefits come with serious risks. The Rudie case shows that a form that doesn’t prompt detailed disclosures, doesn’t require independent legal counsel, and doesn’t allow for reflective review or negotiation is likely to fail enforceability tests in many states. If you’re using a premade form, it’s crucial to verify whether the form, or the process around it, ensures:
- That both parties receive full financial disclosure of assets, debts, and income
- That both parties enter the agreement with ample time, without coercion or urgency
- That the terms are fair and balanced, not loaded in favor of one spouse only
- That the terms and the signing procedures abide by your state’s specific laws
Forms alone rarely provide protections like independent counsel or flexible negotiation, so even free prenup forms often require review and editing if the goal is enforceability and fairness.
What stronger prenup drafting looks like
To avoid ending up in a situation like Rudie, couples and the attorneys helping them should insist on a higher standard, even when cost or convenience are concerns. First, each party should have access to accurate financial statements, such as bank statements, valuations of assets (i.e., businesses, property, investments), debts, and liabilities. Second, both should ideally have independent legal representation, or at least the right to discuss the agreement with counsel. Third, allow sufficient time between when the agreement is first proposed and when it’s to be signed. Signatures done in the midst of pressure from wedding planning might point to coercion or a lack of real consent.
Also, it’s helpful to build clauses that account for life changes. Consider what happens if unexpected debt arises, health crises, or income shifts. Include specific terms for whether one spouse will be entitled to value from assets that one spouse contributes to, even if those assets were separate originally. Tailor the document to your state’s law. Wisconsin, Rudie shows that without compliance with Section 766.58(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes and the Button v. Button standard, an agreement may be thrown out. Similar standards exist in many other states via statutes or case law.
Implications for attorneys and clients, and why detail matters
For attorneys helping clients, Rudie is a cautionary tale about workflow and diligence. Drafting prenups isn’t just filling in blanks. It’s asking good questions: “Have you and your partner fully disclosed finances?”, “Do you each understand what you’re signing?”, “Do you feel pressured?”, “Are the terms fair both now and later if things change?” Also, lawyers should ensure their clients understand both advantages and potential weaknesses of using simple forms. A well‑crafted agreement often costs more in attorney time but can protect someone from getting far worse consequences later, like total loss of rights or one spouse taking on debt disproportionately.
For clients, the lesson is that cheap or free does not always mean sufficient. It’s tempting to save money, but if you use forms without customization or legal review, what seems like protection may not hold up. Rudie shows that courts will examine not just what’s written, but how it was written, when, whether disclosure was adequate, and whether fairness was present.
Final reflections on Rudie and the dangers of using online prenup forms
The case of In re Marriage of Rudie demonstrates that prenups are only as strong as the foundation underneath them. Using a free online form might feel like progress toward peace of mind, but without disclosure, fairness, voluntariness, and legal context, that peace may be fragile. Every couple deserves prenups that acknowledge their real financial lives, power dynamics, and future uncertainties. The more tailored, transparent, and well-drafted the agreement, the more likely it is to withstand scrutiny and truly protect what matters most. Become familiar with your state’s specific laws regarding prenuptial agreements and talk with an attorney licensed in your state before starting your prenup drafting journey. Later, you might be incredibly grateful that you did.
Robert McMillan Arthur is a collaborative attorney and mediator practicing in the Metro Milwaukee area and the Fox Valley with Arthur Law Office LLC. His practice concentrates on Divorce & Family Law, in addition to Entertainment Law, Small Business Law, and Nonprofit Law. Robert’s family law practice is centered around using interdisciplinary teams to respectfully resolve family law concerns, specializing in separation and divorce.
Robert’s core principle of law practice is based on using his varied experience and training to empower and inform clients, advocate for their interests when appropriate, and guide them in difficult problem solving.
0 Comments