OPINION
{1} This appeal stems from divorce proceedings initiated in 2008 by Wife, Heidi Rivera, against Husband, Jaime Rivera. Pri- or to trial, Wife filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the marriage was void due to the fact that the parties were married in New Mexico but had only a Texas marriage license. The district court agreed and dismissed the divorce proceedings. Prior to the dismissal, Husband had sought to invalidate a premarital agreement he signed shortly before the wedding on the ground that the agreement was unconscionable due to the terms of the agreement and his inability to understand what he was agreeing to. In its dismissal order, the district court noted that if the marriage had been valid, the court would have ruled that the premarital agreement was valid and enforceable. Husband appeals the district court’s dismissal of the divorce proceedings and its conclusion that the premarital agreement was enforceable. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
BACKGROUND
{2} Husband and Wife met while Wife was on vacation in Mexico where Husband resided. A romantic relationship ensued, and Husband and Wife dated for over a year. The parties decided to get married, and Husband moved to the United States to marry Wife. A few days prior to the wedding, Husband and Wife went to Wife’s attorney’s office in Hobbs, New Mexico, to sign a prenuptial agreement that Wife had asked her attorney to prepare. According to Husband, he was under the impression that the agreement was a formality required for the marriage, and he did not understand English well enough to know exactly what he was signing. The district court’s uncontested findings, however, indicate that Husband declined an offer to have the document interpreted.
{3} On February 14, 2000, Husband and Wife were married during a ceremony before the Reverend Jothen Kinney in Hobbs. Pri- or to the ceremony, the parties had obtained a marriage license from the Gaines County clerk’s office in Seminole, Texas, which is located approximately thirty miles from Hobbs. The marriage license issued to the parties granted “authoriz[ation] to solemnize the rites of matrimony between Mr. Jaime Armando Rivera and Miss Heidi Caroline Barton” to “any person authorized by the laws of the state of Texas to celebrate the rites of matrimony in the state of Texas.” The parties took this license to Rev. Kinney, who was authorized to perform marriage ceremonies in both New Mexico and Texas, and who performed the marriage ceremony and filled out the information required on the license. Under the “county of marriage” section, “Lea” was written in, “Texas” was crossed out, and “New Mexico” was written in its place. The license was then returned to the Gaines County clerk, who accepted the returned license and recorded it in the county records on March 17, 2000.
{4} Following the marriage, the couple resided in Hobbs and had two children. In April 2008, after eight years of marriage, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, citing incompatibility between herself and Husband. In November 2008, despite having filed numerous pleadings presuming the validity of the marriage, Wife filed a motion to dismiss her petition, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction. Wife contended that her petition was premised on her belief that the parties were lawfully married in the State of New Mexico when in fact the parties were not lawfully married in New Mexico. Wife argued that she and Husband had failed to obtain a marriage license and medical certificate as required by New Mexico law and that their marriage was therefore invalid. Wife noted that while she had obtained and recorded a marriage license in Texas, she had not met Texas’ statutory requirements for a valid marriage because she did not have a ceremony in Texas. Wife also contended that the ceremony in New Mexico was invalid because the pastor who officiated had no authority to perform the marriage ceremony in New Mexico without a valid New Mexico marriage license.
{5} The district court agreed with Wife and found that it did not have jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce. Specifically, the court found that “the parties celebrated a marriage ceremony in the State of New Mexico that was never authorized by the laws of New Mexico” and that the marriage was therefore invalid. The court concluded that “the laws of Texas are irrelevant to any decision necessary to a resolution of th[e] matter.” The court explained that New Mexico law requires couples desiring to marry to obtain a license in New Mexico and present the license to the person officiating at the ceremony and that without a valid license, the marriage ceremony has no legal effect. Based on this conclusion, the district court dismissed the divorce action. Because Husband had also contested the validity of the premarital agreement, the court concluded that “[i]f the marriage had been valid, the prenuptial agreement would have likewise been valid and enforceable.” Husband appeals the district court’s dismissal of the divorce proceedings and its conclusion that the premarital agreement was valid.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
{6} The facts in this case are generally undisputed. At issue is whether a marriage performed in New Mexico without a New Mexico license is valid. Because this involves a question of law, we review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo. Jacob v. Spurlin,
Choice of Law
{7} Because the marriage was celebrated in New Mexico but licensed in Texas, we briefly address the conflict-of-law issue that this case appears to present. According to Texas law, the “validity of a marriage is generally determined by the law of the place where it is celebrated.” Husband v. Pierce,
The Marriage Was Valid Even Though No New Mexico License Was Obtained
{8} Our Supreme Court has stated that “[f]or a marriage to be valid, it must be formally entered into by contract and solemnized before an appropriate official.” Merrill v. Davis,
{9} Thus, our case law requires that for a New Mexico marriage to be valid, it must be solemnized before an appropriate official and be formally entered into by contract. While this Court has noted on a number of occasions that “[m]arriage is a civil contract requiring a license,” see, e.g., State v. Lard,
{10} NMSA 1978, Section 40-1-10 (1973) provides that “[e]ach couple desiring to marry in New Mexico shall obtain a license from a county clerk and file the same for recording in the county issuing the license, following the marriage ceremony.” In addition to the requirement that the couple desiring to be married obtain a license, NMSA 1978, Section 40-1-14 (1905), provides that “[a]ll persons authorized to solemnize marriage shall require the parties contemplating marriage to produce a license signed and sealed by the county clerk authorizing said marriage.” After the completion of the marriage ceremony, the “person[ ] performing the marriage ceremony” has “the duty ... to certify said marriage to the county clerk within ninety days from the date of marriage.” NMSA 1978, § 40-1-15 (1905).
{11} In the event that the person authorized to solemnize the marriage “neglect[s] or fail[s] to comply with the provisions” requiring the parties to produce a license or fails to certify the marriage, he or she “shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.” NMSA 1978, § 40-1-19 (1905). In addition, a person who “willfully violate[s] the law by deceiving or attempting to deceive or mislead any officer or person authorized to perform the marriage ceremony in order to obtain a marriage license or to be married, contrary to law,” is also guilty of a misdemeanor. Id.
{12} Based on the text of NMSA 1978, Sections 40-1-1 to -20 (1859-1860, as amended through 2001), it is clear that a license from a New Mexico county clerk is required in order for a couple to be married within this state. The question before us, however, is whether the parties’ marriage in this case was valid even though their marriage ceremony was performed in a New Mexico county but the license was obtained in another state. Other courts considering this question have hinged the validity of an unlicensed marriage on whether the licensing aspect of the statute is viewed as mandatory or directory. If the statute is directory, then an unlicensed marriage is valid. See, e.g., De Potty v. De Potty,
{13} In De Potty, the Arkansas Supreme Court was confronted with a question identical to the one before us today — “whether residents of [Arkansas] may legally contract marriage in [Arkansas] with a license issued by a foreign state.”
{14} The Connecticut Supreme Court made a similar holding in a case where it addressed whether a ceremonial marriage performed by an authorized person but without a license was void. See Carabetta v. Carabetta,
{15} Jurisdictions holding that marriage ceremonies performed without a license are invalid typically base their decisions on the fact that the statutory licensing scheme expressly states that a marriage performed without a license is invalid or void. In Arizona, for example, a license is mandatory and, therefore, any marriage performed without one is invalid because Arizona’s licensure statute provides that “[a] marriage contracted [in Arizona] is not valid unless ... [a] license is issued.” Moran,
{16} Here, while the district court determined that the marriage of the parties in this case was void and therefore “not recognizable in the State of New Mexico,” there is no express statement in Sections 40-1-1 to -20 that our Legislature intended that marriages properly solemnized in New Mexico were void based on the absence of a New Mexico license alone. In fact, the only type of marriages our Legislature has expressly declared to be void are incestuous marriages and marriages between or with infants under the age of majority. See §§ 40-1-5, -7, -9. Because our Legislature has demonstrated the ability to expressly make certain types of marriages void and because our Legislature has declined to do so in the case of marriages performed without a New Mexico license, we conclude that our Legislature did not intend to make such marriages void.
{17} We also note that although Section 40-1-20 could be viewed as implying that an unlicensed marriage is void, we are not persuaded that it does. That statute provides that
[a]ll marriages celebrated or contracted in the territory of New Mexico, during the year A.D.1905, without the persons entering into the marriage relation, having first obtained a license ... but which marriages were valid according to the law as it existed prior to April 13, 1905, are hereby validated and legalized and shall have the same force and effect as if ... the parties contracting such marriage had first obtained a license to marry from the probate clerk of the county wherein such marriage occurred.
Id. But see Beverlin,
{18} We are mindful that the case before us is limited to the question of whether a marriage can be deemed valid when a marriage ceremony is performed but the parties fail to obtain a New Mexico license. This was not an attempt to circumvent the laws of this state by engaging in a marriage that would otherwise be contrary to New Mexico’s statutory scheme that prohibits incestuous marriages and marriages between or with minors without parental consent. Neither party disputes that they intended to be married in February 2000. They obtained a marriage license from a county clerk, they participated in a marriage ceremony before an ordained and authorized minister, and they recorded their marriage license with the same county clerk’s office from which they obtained the license. The couple lived together as husband and wife and had children together. Wife changed her last name to reflect her marriage to Husband, and the parties filed joint tax returns for the eight years that they were married. In addition, Wife filed two petitions for dissolution of marriage in which she stated her understanding and belief that she and Husband were validly married. Perhaps due only to the proximity of the marital residence to Seminole, Texas, where the Gaines County clerk’s office is located, the parties obtained their marriage license from and filed it with a Texas county clerk and not a New Mexico county clerk. However, this is not a case where one of parties denies that a marriage ever took place, nor is there evidence that the marriage was somehow contrary to New Mexico’s statutory prohibition against incestuous marriages and marriages between or with minors without parental consent.
{19} We emphasize that our decision today does not in any way render the marriage license meaningless. Marriage licenses continue to be required under New Mexico law as evidence that a marriage fully complies with all requirements of the law. The parties in this case applied for the issuance of a marriage license although they did so in another state. They held a valid ceremony and intended to enter into a contract of marriage. We conclude that given the facts in this case, the couple met the legal requirements of a marriage in this state despite their failure to obtain a New Mexico marriage license. See Merrill,
The Premarital Agreement Executed by the Parties Is Unconscionable
{20} Because we conclude that the marriage between Husband and Wife was valid, we also address whether the district court erred in determining that the prenuptial agreement signed by Husband is valid and enforceable. The district court concluded that “[i]f the marriage had been valid, the prenuptial agreement would have likewise been valid and enforceable.” On appeal, Husband argues that the prenuptial agreement he signed is unenforceable because he was told that it was just a formality, he did not understand the content of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are unconscionable.
{21} We have not previously considered the applicable standard of review when reviewing a district court’s conclusion that a premarital agreement is valid. The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 40-3A-1 to -10 (1995), provides that the “issue of unconscionability or voluntariness of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.” Section 40-3A-7(B). Because the issue is decided as a matter of law, our review is de novo. See Truong v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
{22} The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act provides in part that
[a]premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:
(1) that party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or
(2) the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:
(a) was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;
(b) did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and
(c) did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.
Section 40-3A-7(A). We conclude that Subsection (2) is dispositive.
{23} With respect to the requirements listed as (a), (b), and (c) above, Wife does not dispute Husband’s assertion that she did not disclose the extent of her assets prior to the execution of the agreement, and there is no evidence that Husband either waived his right to disclosure of Wife’s property or that he had or could have had an adequate knowledge of her property and financial obligations. See § 40-3A-7(A)(2). Thus, the sole issue before us is whether the agreement was unconscionable.
{24} Husband argues that the agreement was unconscionable because (1) it conflicts with New Mexico’s public policy, and (2) he had a limited understanding of the English language at the time he executed the agreement and he “had been given to understand that the premarital agreement was a formality associated with marriage.” Unconscionability has “two prongs: substantive unconscionability and procedural unconseionability.” Fiser v. Dell Computer Corp.,
{25} Husband contends that the premarital agreement is substantively unconscionable because it “affects ... the right to seek spousal support after divorce or separation,” in violation of Section 40-3A-4(B). Wife makes no response to this argument and contends only that “[t]here is no evidence in the record, whatsoever, that the [premarital ajgreement was unconscionable.” Section 40-3A-4(B) provides that “[a] premarital agreement may not adversely affect the right of a child or spouse to support.” In violation of this requirement, the agreement provides that Husband and Wife “waive any right to be supported by the other from the other’s property, including but not by way of limitation, any claim for support, maintenance, medical expenses or otherwise, after the death, divorce or permanent separation of the parties.” The paragraphs of the agreement in which the parties agree that their separate property will remain separate also provide that the parties “shall have no claim for support, maintenance or claim, of any kind.” Because these provisions of the premarital agreement adversely affect the right of the spouses to support, the agreement is contrary to the public policy expressed in Section 40-3A-4(B) and is therefore unconscionable. See Fiser,
{26} While we conclude that the provisions of the agreement that violate Section 40-3A-4(B) are unconscionable, we must determine the effect the uneonscionability of these provisions has on the agreement as a whole. The agreement does not contain a severability clause, and Wife makes no argument that the remainder of the agreement should not be affected by the invalidity of the support provisions. Because Wife makes no argument and because we are unable to discern whether the parties bargained for the waiver of spousal support in exchange for other benefits or concessions, we are unable to conclude that any portion of the agreement is valid without the unconscionable provisions. Thus, we conclude that the entire agreement is unconscionable and reverse the district court’s conclusion that the agreement is valid and enforceable.
CONCLUSION
{27} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
{28} IT IS SO ORDERED.