VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.
[¶ 1] Sheila A. Toni appealed from an order denying her motion to modify a divorce decree under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24. In the motion Sheila Toni asked the trial court to modify a spousal support award granted in a divorce judgment which incorporated her agreement with Conrad R. Toni to divest the court of jurisdiction to modify the amount and term of spousal support set forth in the agreement. We conclude the parties’ agreement, which was found by the court in the divorce action to be “fair, just and equitable,” is enforceable under North Dakota law and divested the court of jurisdiction to modify the spousal support award. We therefore affirm.
I
[¶ 2] Conrad and Sheila Toni were married from July 9, 1971, until May 10, 1999. The couple had three children during the marriage, and one of them was a minor at the time of the divorce. Both parties are employed in Fargo: Conrad as a urologist, and Sheila as a clerk at Barnes & Noble Bookstore.
[¶ 3] Before their divorce was granted, the parties entered into a “Custody and Property Settlement Agreement” which comprehensively addressed all divorce issues. The agreement stated that, although Conrad had been represented by counsel, Sheila “has not been represented by counsel and has been informed that Maureen Holman does not represent her interests in this matter but has not sought such independent counsel and enters into this custody and property settlement agreement of her. own free will.” The agreement also stated, “[bjoth parties agree that each has made a full disclosure to the other of all assets and liabilities and is satisfied that this custody and property settlement agreement is fair and equitable,” and “[e]ach party has entered into this custody and property settlement agreement intending it to be a full and final settlement of all claims of every kind, nature, and description which either party may have or claim to have, now or in the future, against the other and, except as is expressly provided herein to the contrary, each is released from all further liability of any kind, nature or description whatsoever to the other.”
[¶ 4] The agreement provided for “joint physical custody” of the couple’s minor daughter, who was expected to graduate from high school in May 1999. The agreement divided the parties’ real property, stocks and retirement accounts, but did not disclose the value of those assets. The agreement also contained the following provision on spousal support:
Commencing May 1, 1999, Conrad shall pay to Sheila the sum of $5,000 per month as and for spousal support. Said payments will continue on the first day of each month thereafter until the death of either party, Sheila’s remarriage, or until the payment due on April 1, 2002 has been made. It is intended that the spousal support payable to Sheila shall be included in Sheila’s gross income for income tax purposes and shall be deductible by Conrad. The court shall be divested of jurisdiction to modify in any manner whatsoever the amount and term of the spousal support awarded to Sheila immediately upon entry of the judgment and decree herein. The court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce Con[398]*398rad’s obligation to pay spousal support to Sheila.
[¶ 5] At the divorce hearing, Conrad appeared with his attorney, but Sheila, who had admitted service of the summons and complaint, did not personally appear. The trial court granted the divorce and, finding the parties’ agreement to be “a fair, just and equitable settlement,” incorporated its provisions into the divorce decree.
[¶ 6] In November 2000, Sheila moved under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 to modify the spousal support award. Sheila claimed in an affidavit that Conrad earned $14,000 per month in “take-home pay” when they married and she believed he continued to earn a “similar” amount per month, while she earns $1,000 per month working full-time as a clerk at Barnes & Noble Bookstore. Sheila further alleged, although income from assets she received in the divorce had paid her about $2,700 per month, the “return on those assets this year has been almost nothing.” Sheila estimated her monthly expenses to be $5,340, and said her accountant informed her she could convert a retirement account into an annuity producing $2,000 per month in additional income, but she is “afraid to convert this to an annuity because I believe I need it for my retirement.” Sheila claimed she has a “neurological condition” that causes her trouble sleeping, and she stayed home with the children during her marriage to Conrad rather than pursuing her own career. Sheila also stated:
I met Bob Boman after I separated from my husband. I had agreed to a reduced three-year term for spousal support because Dr. Boman was in his residency following medical school. Once he finished, we had agreed that he would pay the family expenses. Conrad and I had decided to divorce in August and I met Bob in October. Bob and I planned to marry after the divorce. Bob and I are no longer together and I do not receive any money from him.
[¶ 7] The parties agreed to submit to the trial court the sole issue whether the provision of the parties’ agreement divesting the court of jurisdiction to modify spousal support was valid under North Dakota law, and to stay any proceedings on the merits of the motion to modify the spousal support award. The trial court dismissed Sheila’s motion, ruling “the parties entered into a binding contract which was incorporated into the judgment and ... the court now lacks jurisdiction to modify spousal support.”
II
[¶ 8] We assume, for purposes of argument only, that Sheila’s claims of lowered investment yields and a failed relationship are sufficient to constitute a material change of circumstances to support a motion to modify spousal support. See, e.g., Lohstreter v. Lohstreter, 2001 ND 45, ¶ 13, 623 N.W.2d 350 (noting a material change of circumstances is something which substantially affects a party’s financial ability and needs and which is not originally contemplated by the parties); compare Johnson v. Johnson, 2001 ND 109, ¶ 8, 627 N.W.2d 779 (holding breakup of wife’s engagement to fiancee after judgment is not newly discovered evidence for granting new trial). The legal question in this case is whether the parties’ divorce stipulation regarding spousal support can divest the trial court of its statutory authority to modify the amount and duration of support. Questions of law are fully renewable on appeal. See Lawrence v. Dellcamp, 2000 ND 214, ¶ 7, 620 N.W.2d 151.
[¶ 9] At the pertinent time, N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 allowed a trial court to compel either party to a divorce to [399]*399make such suitable allowance for support as the court deemed just:
When a divorce is granted, the court shall make such equitable distribution of the real and personal property of the parties as may seem just and proper, and may compel either of the parties to provide for the maintenance of the children of the marriage, and to make such suitable allowances to the other party for support during life or for a shorter period as to the court may seem just, having regard to the circumstances of the parties respectively. The court from time to time may modify its orders in these respects.1
Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24, the trial court generally retains continuing jurisdiction to modify spousal support, child support, and child custody upon a showing of changed circumstances. See Kopp v. Kopp, 2001 ND 41, ¶ 5, 622 N.W.2d 726. This Court has construed the statute, however, to not allow a trial court continuing jurisdiction to modify a final property distribution, Johnson, 2001 ND 109, ¶ 8, 627 N.W.2d 779, and we have held when a trial court makes no initial award of spousal support and fails to expressly reserve jurisdiction over the issue, the court subsequently lacks jurisdiction to award spousal support. Becker v. Becker, 262 N.W.2d 478, 484 (N.D.1978). Sheila argues N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 gives a trial court the unconditional right to modify a spousal support award, regardless of any agreement by divorcing parties purporting to divest the court of that power.
[¶ 10] We encourage peaceful settlements of disputes in divorce matters. See Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843, 846 (N.D.1994); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 391 N.W.2d 617, 620 (N.D.1986); Seablom v. Seablom, 348 N.W.2d 920, 924 (N.D.1984); Fleck v. Fleck, 337 N.W.2d 786, 791 (N.D.1983); Peterson v. Peterson, 313 N.W.2d 743, 745 (N.D.1981); Galloway v. Galloway, 281 N.W.2d 804, 807 (N.D.1979). It is the promotion of the strong public policy favoring prompt and peaceful resolution of divorce disputes that generates a judicial bias in favor of the adoption of a stipulated agreement of the parties. See Laude v. Laude, 1999 ND 203, ¶ 7, 600 N.W.2d 848; Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833, 836 (N.D.1994). We have also noted a person may waive “all rights and privileges to which a person is legally entitled, whether secured by contract, conferred by statute, or guaranteed by the constitution, provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual who has waived them and are intended for his benefit.” Gajewski v. Bratcher, 221 N.W.2d 614, 628 (N.D.1974).
[¶ 11] In line with these principles, this Court has held a trial court has continuing jurisdiction to modify child support notwithstanding parental divorce settlement agreements prohibiting or limiting the court’s modification powers, because the right to child support belongs to the child rather than to the parent, rendering such agreements violative of public policy and invalid. See Smith v. Smith, 538 N.W.2d 222, 226 (N.D.1995); Sullivan v. Quist, 506 N.W.2d 394, 397 (N.D.1993); Reimer v. Reimer, 502 N.W.2d 231, 233 (N.D.1993); Rueckert v. Rueckert, 499 N.W.2d 863, 867-68 (N.D.1993); State of Minnesota v. [400]*400Snell, 493 N.W.2d 656, 659 (N.D.1992); Tiokasin v. Haas, 370 N.W.2d 559, 562 (N.D.1985). On the other hand, we have encouraged spousal support awards based on agreements between the divorcing parties, and noted those agreements “should be changed only with great reluctance by the trial court.” Huffman v. Huffman, 477 N.W.2d 594, 597 (N.D.1991). See also Greenwood v. Greenwood, 1999 ND 126, ¶ 17, 596 N.W.2d 317; Wheeler v. Wheeler, 548 N.W.2d 27, 30 (N.D.1996); Becker, 262 N.W.2d at 484; Bingert v. Bingert, 247 N.W.2d 464, 467-68 (N.D.1976). Although this Court has often said a spousal support award based on an agreement between the parties can be modified upon a showing of material change of circumstances, see, e.g., Wheeler v. Wheeler, 419 N.W.2d 923, 925 (N.D.1988); Cook v. Cook, 364 N.W.2d 74, 76 (N.D.1985); Eberhart v. Eberhart, 301 N.W.2d 137, 143 (N.D.1981), we have not been confronted with a contractual settlement clause, adopted by the trial court and incorporated into the divorce decree, attempting to divest the court of its continuing jurisdiction to modify the amount and term of the spousal support award.
[¶ 12] Jurisdictions differ over their treatment of agreements between divorcing couples seeking to limit a court’s ability to modify spousal support arrangements. See generally Annot., Divorce: Power of court to modify decree for alimony or support of spouse which was based on agreement of parties, 61 A.L.R.3d 520 (1975); 24A Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 817 (1998). Some jurisdictions, by statute, specifically allow parties to enter into nonmodifiable spousal support agreements. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Ousterman, 46 Cal.App.4th 1090, 54 Cal. Rptr.2d 403, 405 (1996) (construing Cal. Family Code § 3651(d) and predecessor statute); In re Marriage of Chalkley, 99 Ill.App.3d 478, 55 Ill.Dec. 262, 426 N.E.2d 237, 240 (1981) (construing 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/502(f)); Bair v. Bair, 242 Kan. 629, 750 P.2d 994, 997 (1988) (construing Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1610(b)(3)); Hamilos v. Hamilos, 52 Md.App. 488, 450 A.2d 1316, 1320 (1982) (construing Md.Code Ann., Family Law § 8-103(c)(2)); Santillan v. Martine, 560 N.W.2d 749, 750 (Minn.App.1997) (construing Minn.Stat. § 518.552); Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte, 34 S.W.3d 387, 392 (Mo.2001) (construing Mo. Rev.Stat. § 452.325.6); In re Marriage of Pearson, 291 Mont. 101, 965 P.2d 268, 274 (1998) (construing Mont.Code Ann. § 40-4-201(6)); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 22 Va.App. 503, 471 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1996) (construing Va.Code Ann. § 20-109); Yearout v. Yearout, 41 Wash.App. 897, 707 P.2d 1367, 1369 (1985) (construing Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.070(7)). See also Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act § 306(f), 9A U.L.A. 249 (1998). Other jurisdictions, by statute, specifically prohibit nonmodifiable spousal support agreements. See, e.g., Vorfeld v. Vorfeld, 8 Haw.App. 391, 804 P.2d 891, 897 (1991) (construing Haw.Rev. Stat. §§ 572-22 and 580-47).
[¶ 13] Several jurisdictions, by judicial decision, have allowed contractual waivers of the right to seek spousal support modification. See, e.g., Beasley v. Beasley, 707 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Ala.Civ.App.1997); Rockwell v. Rockwell, 681 A.2d 1017, 1021 (Del.Supr.1996); Kilpatrick v. McLouth, 392 So.2d 985, 986 (Fla.App.1981); Ashworth v. Busby, 272 Ga. 228, 526 S.E.2d 570, 572 (2000); Voigt v. Voigt, 670 N.E.2d 1271, 1280 (Ind.1996); Staple v. Staple, 241 Mich.App. 562, 616 N.W.2d 219, 223 (2000); Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501, 503-04 (Minn.1989) (upholding right to waive modification before right was legislatively established); Moseley v. Mosier, 279 S.C. 348, 306 S.E.2d 624, 627 (1983); Nichols v. Nichols, 162 Wis.2d 96, 469 N.W.2d 619, 623 (1991). Other jurisdictions, through court decisions, have disallowed contractu[401]*401al waivers of the right to seek modification of spousal support. See, e.g., Norberg v. Norberg, 135 N.H. 620, 609 A.2d 1194, 1196 (1992); Matter of Marriage of Eidlin, 140 Or.App. 479, 916 P.2d 338, 341 (1996).
[¶ 14] We think the reasoning of the current trend of jurisdictions which allow divorcing couples to agree to make spousal support nonmodifiable is persuasive.
[¶ 15] This result is consistent with our prior caselaw on spousal support. In Becker, 262 N.W.2d at 484, this Court held, unless a trial court makes an initial award of spousal support or expressly reserves jurisdiction over the issue, the court lacks jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 to subsequently modify its decision and award spousal support. The original divorce decree in Becker stated, “ ‘neither party shall pay alimony to the other,’ ” and that language was incorporated from the parties’ stipulation and property settlement agreement found to be “fair and equitable” by the trial court. Id. at 480, 484. This Court ruled the contract provision was unambiguous, and the “parties are bound by their contract provision for no alimony even if the court is not.” Id. at 484. We see no valid distinction between a stipulation to waive all spousal support at the time of the initial divorce decree and a waiver of future modification. If a spouse can waive all right to spousal support, it logically follows that a spouse can waive the right to modification. See, e.g., Kilpatrick, 392 So.2d at 986; Staple, 616 N.W.2d at 226-27.
[¶ 16] In response to the argument that contracting parties cannot divest a court of its jurisdiction under a statute similar to N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24, the court in Karon, 435 N.W.2d at 503, reasoned:
It is not the parties to the stipulation who have divested the court of ability to relitigate the issue of maintenance. The court had the authority to refuse to accept the terms of the stipulation in part or in toto. The trial court stands in place and on behalf of the citizens of the state as a third party to dissolution actions. It has a duty to protect the interests of both parties and all the citizens of the state to ensure that the stipulation is fair and reasonable to all. The court did so here and approved the stipulation and incorporated the terms therein in its decree. Thus, the decree is final absent fraud.
[¶ 17] Section 14-05-24, N.D.C.C., does not expressly prohibit nonmodification agreements. If the legislature intended to prevent parties from entering into non-modifiable spousal support agreements, it could have expressly prohibited them. See Nichols, 469 N.W.2d at 623. See also Bland v. Comm’n on Medical Competency, 557 N.W.2d 379, 384 (N.D.1996) (holding because statute did not expressly prohibit appeals to this Court, the legislature did not intend to forbid such appeals). We recognize there can be no waiver of statutory rights if the waiver would be against public policy. See N.D.C.C. § 1-02-28; Steckler v. Steckler, 492 N.W.2d 76, 78 n. 1 (N.D.1992). However, we do not believe allowing parties to agree that spousal support is nonmodifiable violates the public policy of this state.
[¶ 18] Our caselaw invalidating parental divorce stipulations prohibiting or limiting a court’s modification powers over child support is governed by public policy principles entirely different from those present when reviewing an agreement concerning spousal support. While a spousal support agreement “serves primarily to determine the interests of the contracting parties themselves,” a child support agreement “directly affects the interests of the children of the marriage, who have the most at stake as a result of such an agreement but who have the least ability to [402]*402protect their interests.” Tiokasin, 370 N.W.2d at 562. “Put simply, the parties to a [spousal support] agreement are both grown-ups, free to bargain with their own legal rights.” Voigt, 670 N.E.2d at 1274. Freedom to contract on terms not specifically prohibited by statute, see RLI Ins. Co. v. Heling, 520 N.W.2d 849, 854 (N.D.1994), is the major public policy question presented here.
[¶ 19] Permitting parties to determine the future modifiability of their spousal support agreements maximizes the advantages of careful future planning and eliminates uncertainties based on the fear of subsequent motions to increase or decrease the obligations of the parties. See Chalkley, 55 Ill.Dec. 262, 426 N.E.2d at 240; Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act § 306, Comment, 9A U.L.A. at 250. In Staple, 616 N.W.2d at 228, the court relied on public policy reasons identified by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) for validating agreements to waive future modification of spousal support awards:
The AAML comments that “[recognizing and enforcing” the parties’ waiver of modification “does no violence to public policy, and is consistent with the reasonable expectancy interests of the parties.” The AAML also offers five public policy reasons why courts should enforce duly executed nonmodifiable alimony arrangements: (1) Nonmodifiable agreements enable parties to structure package settlements, in which alimony, asset divisions, attorney fees, postsecondary tuition for children, and related matters are all coordinated in a single, mutually acceptable agreement; (2) finality of divorce provisions allows predictability for parties planning their postdivorce lives; (3) finality fosters judicial economy; (4) finality and predictability lower the cost of divorce for both parties; (5) enforcing agreed-upon provisions for alimony will encourage increased compliance with agreements by parties who know that their agreements can and will be enforced by the court.
(footnote omitted). It has been noted that honoring and enforcing nonmodification agreements will “discourage former spouses from using the modification process ‘repeatedly for vexatious purposes only.’ ” Voigt, 670 N.E.2d at 1279. In Karon, 435 N.W.2d at 504, the court also found “compelling” amicus curiae’s argument that setting aside the parties’ spousal support agreement incorporated into the divorce decree would be “insulting and demeaning to women,” because it would mean “the state must protect them in the manner it protects children in the role of parens patriae,” resulting “in chaos in the family law field and declining respect for binding agreements as well.”
[¶ 20] Nullifying waivers of future spousal support modifications would discourage the settlement of divorce cases, see Staple, 616 N.W.2d at 227; Nichols, 469 N.W.2d at 627, contrary to our public policy favoring peaceful settlements of disputes in divorce matters. See, e.g., Clooten, 520 N.W.2d at 846. We conclude agreements by divorcing parties to make spousal support nonmodifiable and which are adopted by the trial court do not violate N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 or public policy.
[¶ 21] The parties’ agreement in this case is not ambiguous, but is clear and unequivocal: “The court shall be divested of jurisdiction to modify in any manner whatsoever the amount and term of the spousal support awarded to Sheila immediately upon entry of the judgment and decree herein.” Similar stipulations have been enforced in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Ashworth, 526 S.E.2d at 571; Varn v. Varn, 242 Ga. 309, 248 S.E.2d 667, 668 (1978); Simmons v. Simmons, 77 Ill.[403]*403App.3d 740, 33 Ill.Dec. 242, 396 N.E.2d 631, 633-34 (1979). Sheila acknowledged full disclosure of assets and liabilities; Conrad’s attorney did not represent her, she did not obtain counsel, and entered into the agreement “of her own free will;” and the agreement is “fair and equitable” and is intended “to be a full and final settlement of all claims of every kind ...” The divorce court found the agreement to be “a fair, just and equitable settlement” of the parties’ divorce action and incorporated the provisions of the agreement into the divorce decree. We conclude the trial court correctly ruled it had no jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 to entertain Sheila’s motion to modify the spousal support award.
[¶ 22] Our holding in this case, however, is narrow. This case is not a direct appeal from the original divorce judgment challenging the terms of the parties’ agreement. See Weber v. Weber, 1999 ND 11, ¶ 1, 589 N.W.2d 358; Weber v. Weber, 548 N.W.2d 781, 782 (N.D.1996). Nor is this case an appeal from the denial of a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the divorce judgment based on allegations of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party, or that it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application. See Crawford, 524 N.W.2d at 835. Sheila has not argued the parties’ agreement is either procedurally unconscionable in the sense she lacked independent counsel and did not voluntarily enter into the agreement, or substantively unconscionable in the sense enforcement of the agreement will force her onto public assistance. See Matter of Estate of Lutz, 1997 ND 82, ¶¶ 28, 42, 563 N.W.2d 90. Sheila’s motion was brought under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 to modify the spousal support award based on a material change of circumstances. We simply hold the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain that motion.
Ill
[¶ 23] The trial court’s order" is affirmed.
[¶ 24] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM, CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, and WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, JJ., concur.