J.M. v. G.V. (2025): When a Prenup’s Maintenance Waiver Fails in New York

The Facts of J.M. v. G.V.

The spouses married in New York on May 23, 2018. About a week earlier, on May 16, 2018, they signed a prenuptial agreement at the office of the wife’s lawyer. The husband had no lawyer; the agreement recited that he had an opportunity to retain independent counsel and chose to represent himself.

Under the agreement, property titled in one spouse’s name alone, even if acquired during the marriage, was that spouse’s separate property. In the maintenance section, after reciting the statutory guidelines, the husband agreed he would “neither seek nor require any maintenance, temporary, permanent or otherwise.” Both spouses also opted out of the temporary and post-divorce maintenance guidelines. Schedules of assets and liabilities were attached, but neither spouse’s income was listed.

The wife filed for divorce in 2023 on the no-fault ground of irretrievable breakdown. The husband counterclaimed to set the prenup aside and moved for summary judgment. He argued that he had no lawyer, signed under wedding-week pressure, was misled by bolded text, and did not know what maintenance he was waiving. The court later noted that the wife’s 2022 tax return showed adjusted gross income of $110,645 and the husband’s showed $28,323.

What the Court Decided

Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine issued the decision on January 2, 2025. The full opinion is on the New York courts’ website. In summary:

• Default. The husband asked for judgment because the wife had not replied to his counterclaim. The court refused, applying the liberal policy of deciding matrimonial cases on the merits, and gave her 20 days to reply.
• The whole agreement. The request to declare the entire prenup void was denied.
• Maintenance. The court granted partial summary judgment to the husband, vacated the maintenance provisions, and referred maintenance to the trial court, subject to any interim application.
• Counsel fees. The court awarded the husband $20,000 in interim counsel fees as the less-monied spouse.

Why the Rest of the Prenup Survived

The court started from the strong presumption that a properly executed prenup is valid, which the challenger carries a heavy burden to overcome. The husband’s arguments did not meet that burden:

• No lawyer. The court explained that the “absence of legal representation, without more, does not establish overreaching,” and noted the agreement’s recitals that he chose to represent himself.
• Timing and pressure. Relying on Second Department decisions, the court held that the husband’s belief that the wedding, seven days away, would be called off if he did not sign was not enough to show duress.
• Bolded text and oral assurances. Read as a whole, the agreement clearly made property titled in one spouse’s name that spouse’s separate property. The court also cited the agreement’s “Entire Understanding” clause, which said neither party relied on representations outside the agreement, in rejecting the husband’s claim that the wife told him it protected only premarital assets.
• Financial disparity. A significant disparity, without more, did not justify setting the agreement aside. Assets and liabilities had been disclosed in schedules, and the failure to list the wife’s exact income, standing alone, was not enough to void the prenup.

Why the Maintenance Waiver Failed

The court said the question “appears to be one of first impression” under the post-divorce maintenance guidelines: whether a self-represented spouse waiving maintenance in a prenup must be given the presumptive maintenance calculation. It held that “the full presumptive maintenance calculations are required to provide a knowing waiver.”

The analysis rested on two provisions. The first is Domestic Relations Law (DRL) § 236(B)(3), which lets spouses agree on maintenance, subject to GOL § 5-311, if the terms were “fair and reasonable at the time of the making of the agreement” and are “not unconscionable at the time of entry of final judgment.” The second is DRL § 236(B)(6)(g), which bars a court from entering a maintenance order or judgment for an unrepresented party without informing that party of the post-divorce guideline obligation. The court concluded: “It would be antithetical to the protections of the maintenance guidelines statute to hold that the requirement for knowing waiver for self-represented litigants does not apply to prenuptial agreements.”

Applying that rule, the court required both incomes and the full calculation, as of signing, “where either or both parties are self-represented.” This agreement recited the formula but no incomes, and “[w]ithout incomes provided, there was no way to include the full calculation of the maintenance guidelines sum and without that sum there could be no knowing waiver.” The court rejected the argument that incomes change over time, reasoning that “the statute requires only that waiver be knowingly made at the time it is waived.”

The entire maintenance provision was vacated, and the severability clause kept the rest of the agreement in force. The court did not reach the husband’s separate argument that the maintenance terms were unconscionable. It also drew on Spiegel v. Spiegel, 206 A.D.3d 1178 (3d Dep’t 2022), where the Appellate Division vacated a prenup’s maintenance provision that lacked the presumptive temporary maintenance calculation, and the reasons for deviating from it, then required by former DRL § 236(B)(5-a)(f).

The General Obligations Law § 5-311 Analysis

GOL § 5-311 bars spouses from contracting to relieve either of the duty to support the other “in such a manner that he or she will become incapable of self-support and therefore is likely to become a public charge.”

The court found that the maintenance provision gave no incomes and “made no affirmative representation as to whether the alleged waiver of support would not render either party a public charge.” As a result, it could not find that the waiver did not also violate § 5-311. A general recital that each party was “fully informed of the income, assets, property and financial prospects of the other” was not enough on its own.

What J.M. v. G.V. Does Not Do

• It does not bind other courts. It is the decision of one Supreme Court justice. Other judges may find it persuasive, but only appellate decisions are binding on trial courts. It is published in the Official Reports, and as of October 2026 we have not found an appellate decision reviewing it or a later decision applying it.
• It is framed around a self-represented spouse. The court did not decide whether the same requirement applies when both spouses have lawyers.
• It did not create new tests. The court did not adopt a multi-part “knowing” test, did not question entire-agreement clauses (it relied on one), and did not disturb the property terms.
• It did not change the formalities. A prenup must still be in writing, signed, and acknowledged in the form required to record a deed (DRL § 236(B)(3)). An unacknowledged agreement is unenforceable (Matisoff v. Dobi, 90 N.Y.2d 127 (1997)), and a defective acknowledgment certificate can defeat a prenup (Galetta v. Galetta, 21 N.Y.3d 186 (2013)).

Drafting Takeaways for New York Prenups

No drafting step removes every risk, but each of these addresses a problem that J.M. identified or a requirement New York law already imposes. Our overview of prenuptial agreements in New York covers the basics.

1. Disclose incomes. State each spouse’s income as of signing, along with schedules of assets and liabilities.
2. Show the guideline figure being waived. Include the maintenance calculation based on those incomes and the income cap in effect at signing ($241,000 since March 1, 2026). If income exceeds the cap, address maintenance above the cap too.
3. Independent counsel for each spouse. New York does not require it, but it removes the self-represented-spouse issue on which J.M. turned and supports the fairness of the process.
4. Proper acknowledgment. Each signature should be acknowledged before a notary (or, for a prenup, a person authorized to solemnize marriages), with a complete certificate.
5. Consider GOL § 5-311. Ask whether a waiver could leave a spouse unable to be self-supporting; a boilerplate recital may not be enough.
6. Sign early and include a severability clause. Time to review helps, and severability let the rest of this agreement survive.

For example, suppose that at signing one spouse earns $150,000, the other earns $30,000, and no child support is involved. The post-divorce formula compares 30% of the higher income minus 20% of the lower ($45,000 − $6,000 = $39,000) with 40% of combined income minus the lower income ($72,000 − $30,000 = $42,000). The lower result, $39,000 a year, is the guideline amount a waiver would give up.

If you already have a prenup with a maintenance waiver signed without a lawyer or without incomes, have it reviewed. A postnuptial agreement, signed and acknowledged the same way, may be one option.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did J.M. v. G.V. decide?

A Kings County Supreme Court justice vacated the maintenance waiver in a 2018 prenup because the agreement, which the husband signed without a lawyer, did not state either spouse’s income or the guideline maintenance amount he was giving up. The court held that a self-represented spouse needs the full presumptive calculation to waive knowingly. It upheld the rest of the prenup, including the property terms.

Is J.M. v. G.V. binding on other New York courts?

No. It is a trial-level decision of one Supreme Court justice, so it does not bind other judges, although they may find its reasoning persuasive. It has been published in the Official Reports, and as of October 2026 we have not found an appellate decision reviewing it. Anyone relying on it should check for later developments.

Can you still waive maintenance in a New York prenup?

Yes. DRL § 236(B)(3) allows prenups to address maintenance if the agreement is in writing, signed, and acknowledged, and the terms were fair and reasonable when made and are not unconscionable at final judgment. GOL § 5-311 also limits waivers that could leave a spouse a public charge. One trial court has held that a self-represented spouse must be given the guideline calculation for a waiver to be knowing.

What should a prenup include to support a maintenance waiver?

Prudent practice is to state both spouses’ incomes as of signing, show the guideline maintenance calculation being waived, give each spouse independent counsel and time to review, and have each signature properly acknowledged. Considering whether the waiver could leave a spouse unable to be self-supporting also matters under GOL § 5-311. No step removes every risk, but each addresses a known one.

Joel Yacoob drafts and reviews prenuptial agreements for couples in New York and New Jersey. Prenup fees are fixed: Standard $2,500; Complex $4,000; High-net-worth $6,000+. Learn more about our prenuptial agreement practice, or start your case online.

---

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law changes and every situation is different; consult a lawyer about your own circumstances.