By Ryan T. McGuire and Isabel Ranney

I. Introduction

The engagement of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, announced on August 26, 2025, captivated the world. [1] As one of the most high-profile couples in America with collective assets worth billions of dollars, it is likely that they are contemplating entering into a prenuptial agreement or “prenup.”

Under Arizona law, a prenup between these two would involve negotiating the division (or separation) of complex assets, including music catalogs, NFL contracts, and real estate holdings across multiple states. As a global music icon with billions in assets and an NFL superstar with a growing brand of his own, Taylor and Travis undoubtedly have a team of lawyers dedicated to ensuring any possible community assets are created intentionally. This post examines how Arizona law would govern a prenuptial agreement between Travis and Taylor, should they marry in Arizona (or, more generally, if they marry in a community property state, such as California).

II. Understanding Prenuptial Agreements in Arizona

In Arizona, prenups are governed by the Arizona Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. [2] Under this Act, a prenup must be in writing and signed by both parties. The agreement becomes effective only once the couple marries.

A premarital agreement must meet specific standards to be considered valid and  enforceable under Arizona law. These considerations are both procedural (meaning, there are rules that govern the creation of the agreement) and substantive (meaning, the agreement must be signed without various external pressures). First, both parties must provide fair and reasonable disclosure of their assets and debts or waive the right to further disclosure. This requirement is critical for high-net-worth individuals. For example, Taylor would need to disclose her music catalog value, real estate holdings, and business interests. Travis would need to reveal his NFL contract details, endorsement income, and investments. A party can waive the right to disclosure, but that waiver must be voluntary, express, and in writing. For someone with Taylor’s assets, waiving disclosure could make sense, as both parties have a significant net worth of their own and may not need to engage in high-level disclosure.

The prenup also must be signed voluntarily, which is one of the substantive requirements. If contested, the court could examine several factors: Was there pressure to sign? Did both parties have sufficient time to review the agreement prior to the marriage? Did they have independent legal counsel or the opportunity to consult with one? In a high-profile case like this, both parties are likely to retain their own attorneys, since the failure to include certain assets could create unintended community property that would be subject to division should the parties divorce. Taylor’s lawyers  would want to ensure that  her music empire is protected while Travis’s lawyers would want to safeguard his NFL earnings and brand deals.

Arizona law also requires that the agreement not be unconscionable when executed. An unconscionable agreement is one that is extremely unfair or one-sided. For Taylor and Travis, unconscionability is unlikely if both have independent counsel and full disclosure. However, if they want to include any extreme provisions, the prenuptial agreement could still be challenged. For example, if one party is seen as having significantly more bargaining power than the other, the agreement might not survive if challenged.

III. Asset Protection and Property Division

Arizona is a community property state, which means, to oversimplify, that without a prenup, assets acquired during the marriage are split 50/50. The advantage of a prenup is that it gives the couple, rather than the state, control over how their assets will be divided by allowing them to flip the presumption on its head – meaning, assets acquired during marriage could be presumptively separate property of one party instead of community.

Inherited and gifted property are separate property under Arizona law, and only need to be briefly addressed in the prenup. For example, if Travis or Taylor inherit assets from family members during the marriage, that is considered their separate property. That said, if either of them puts an inheritance in a joint fund, they risk the money losing its separate character.

To the extent they can be proven, generally, assets acquired before marriage are separate property. Still, Taylor and Travis would want to clearly outline that they intend for that asset to remain separate property upon their marriage. For example, Taylor’s music catalog is a constantly appreciating asset that shifts value over time. Taylor would likely want to clearly outline how the value of her music catalog, whatever it may be before or during the marriage, remains her separate property.

As mentioned previously, Taylor’s music generates ongoing income, and that streaming revenue will likely continue during the marriage. Under Arizona community property law, income earned during marriage is normally community property (unless it is accrued passively­­­—­meaning, without Taylor’s involvement). However, a prenup could clearly designate these royalties as separate property. The agreement would specify that future albums, re-recordings, and streaming income belong solely to Taylor, protecting her creative work and business decisions.

The same principle applies to Travis. His NFL salary and endorsement deals signed during the marriage would normally be community property, as it is income earned during the marriage. The prenup could designate these as separate property, ensuring that his earnings from football and endorsements remain his sole and separate property. This protects his career earnings from division in the event of divorce.

Additionally, Travis has expanded his business interests into media and entertainment through his podcast, production deals, and brand partnerships. The prenup could protect these ventures by clarifying the ownership of his existing businesses and addressing future ventures launched during marriage.

Both Taylor and Travis own real estate. A prenup could list each property and designate it as separate. However, real estate often appreciates in value. Without a prenup, the court would determine whether appreciation is separate or community property. If separate property appreciates passively (through market forces alone), it remains separate. If community effort or funds contribute to appreciation, some portion may become community property. A prenup would address this directly. It could state that all appreciation remains separate property or create a formula for dividing appreciation based on community contributions.

IV. Financial Support and Special Provisions

A.R.S. § 25-203(A)(4) allows parties to modify or eliminate spousal support, also known as “spousal maintenance” or “alimony”. High earners like Taylor and Travis would likely agree to waive spousal support entirely, meaning neither would be able to seek support from the other. Given their independent wealth, this approach makes sense. Alternatively, they could limit support by capping it at a specific amount or duration, providing some protection while acknowledging the marital relationship. Some prenuptial agreements link the amount of support to the length of the marriage.

However, there’s one important exception to a waiver of support in Arizona. Under A.R.S. § 25-202(D), if a support waiver would make one party eligible for public assistance, a court can override the prenup to protect the state from supporting someone whose wealthy ex-spouse waived support. For Taylor and Travis, this exception is unlikely to apply given their substantial independent wealth and earning capacity, but it is important to note.

Sunset Clauses: Some couples include sunset clauses that modify or eliminate the prenup after a certain time period. For example, a sunset clause might provide that the prenup expires after ten years of marriage or phases out gradually: after five years, the agreement might allow for limited property division; after ten years, it might permit full community property division. The principle behind sunset clauses is that while parties want protection early in marriage, as the relationship matures and lives become more intertwined, the prenup becomes less necessary or applicable because the couple has built a life together. For Taylor and Travis, a sunset clause might balance protection with commitment, preserving separate property initially while acknowledging the possibility of a long-term partnership.

Infidelity Clauses: Some couples include infidelity clauses that financially penalize a spouse who is unfaithful. However, infidelity clauses are often complex and difficult to prove. Since Arizona abolished fault-based divorce, the law views marriage dissolution as a civil matter, not a moral one. A clause that penalizes adultery with financial penalties may be difficult to enforce, as courts may view it as against public policy and be hesitant to litigate fault in divorce proceedings. Instead of penalizing infidelity, a prenup could address relationship breakdown differently. The agreement might include confidentiality provisions or specify how public statements are handled during separation, which could be something Travis and Taylor may want to include in their prenuptial agreement. Provisions that focus on practical concerns rather than moral fault are more likely to be enforced.

V. Practical Takeaways

You don’t need Taylor Swift’s wealth to benefit from these principles. The same rules apply to everyone. Full disclosure, voluntary execution, and fair terms matter—whether you have millions or modest assets. A small business owner can protect their company. Someone with family property can keep it separate. A person with a lot of credit card debt can prevent it from becoming a joint obligation.

However, timing is critical. Don’t present a prenup to your fiancé days before the wedding. Give your partner adequate time to review the agreement and consult with an attorney. Any rushed execution invites claims of involuntariness and the entire agreement being invalidated. Both parties should have independent counsel or have the opportunity and means to consult with one, as this prevents later claims of inadequate representation and ensures both sides understand the agreement. Full disclosure is non-negotiable: list all assets and debts, include complete and detailed financial statements, and do not hide anything. Incomplete disclosure can void the entire agreement.

VI. Conclusion

A prenuptial agreement between Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce would likely be lengthy and comprehensive, addressing music royalties, NFL contracts, business interests, real estate holdings, spousal support, and long-term contingencies. Arizona law, specifically A.R.S. § 25-202 and § 25-203, provides a clear framework for these protections and allows couples to shape their financial future with intention while avoiding the 50/50 community property approach. Understanding prenuptial (or premarital) agreements requires recognizing that the law prioritizes fairness above all else. Full disclosure, voluntary execution, and conscionable terms are essential to enforceability.

Marriage is not only an emotional commitment but it also signifies the creation of a legal partnership with substantial financial ramifications. Society often criticizes prenups as stingy or unromantic, but when it comes to protecting your financial future together, a legally valid agreement that addresses potential outcomes is, in fact, actually romantic.

Sources:

[1] Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce announce engagement, sharing photos – CBS News

[2] A.R.S. § 25-201-05

Authors:

Ryan T. McGuire is a law clerk at Woodnick Law PLLC and a second-year student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He leverages his master’s degree in philosophy to produce thorough legal research and writing, with a focus on family law matters. Ryan brings a strong foundation in legal analysis and academic interests spanning family, criminal, and intellectual property litigation law.

Isabel Ranney is an attorney at Woodnick Law PLLC. Prior to passing the bar, Isabel worked as a Law Clerk for Woodnick Law. Prior to graduating from law school, Isabel graduated summa cum laude from Barrett, the Honors College at Arizona State University with a major in political science, minor in criminology and criminal justice and a certificate in homeland security.