Prenup With a Brazilian Partner: Regimes and Enforceability Abroad

The wedding is booked, the families are meeting, and somewhere between the venue deposit and the visa paperwork a friend asks whether you have “done the prenup.” You may own a flat in London, or a stake in a family business in Texas, or simply a career that will outpace your partner’s. Your Brazilian partner may own an apartment in São Paulo bought before you met, or expect to inherit a share of a farm. Both of you have heard that Brazil “splits everything,” and neither of you is sure what that means for assets on the other side of an ocean.

The good news is that Brazilian law gives couples a clear, well-tested instrument for this — the pacto antenupcial — and a menu of property regimes to choose from. The less good news is that it is formal, front-loaded, and limited in what it can do: it governs property, not inheritance and not children, and it does not automatically travel across borders.

The thing this guide turns on is timing and form: in Brazil, the property regime is chosen before the wedding, by public deed, or the law chooses for you. Get that right, understand what the regime does and does not cover, and then deal with the separate question of how the arrangement is treated in your other country.

This is educational content prepared by the ZS Advogados Associados team for foreign nationals marrying or forming a stable union with a Brazilian partner, and for Brazilians abroad marrying a foreign partner with Brazilian assets in the picture. It covers the default regime, the four regimes on offer, how a pacto is made, what it can and cannot contain, which law governs a marriage celebrated abroad, how a Brazilian pacto is treated in other countries, and how regimes can be changed later. It builds on our guides to marriage to a foreigner in Brazil, common-law marriage and stable unions in Brazil, and international divorce in Brazil, where the regime chosen today is finally applied. Three companion resources go deeper on specific pieces: the prenuptial agreement guide, the side-by-side of Brazil’s marriage property regimes, and the comparison of a Brazilian prenup with a foreign one.

What happens if you marry a Brazilian without a prenup?

Brazilian law never leaves a marriage without a property regime. Art. 1.639 opens with the freedom: the engaged couple may, before the marriage is celebrated, stipulate as to their property whatever they please. If they do not — or if the agreement is null or ineffective — Código Civil art. 1.640 assigns the partial community of property (comunhão parcial de bens), and the regime takes effect on the date of the marriage (art. 1.639, §1º). The same article’s sole paragraph sets out the form: the couple may opt for any of the regimes the Code regulates during the marriage habilitação, and while the choice of partial community may simply be recorded in a written term, every other choice requires the pacto antenupcial by public deed.

Partial community draws a line at the wedding day. Separate property (art. 1.659) includes what each spouse owned before the marriage; what each receives during it by gift or inheritance; assets acquired with the proceeds of separate assets (sub-rogation); personal-use items; professional tools; and each spouse’s earnings as such — though what is bought with those earnings is not separate. Common property (art. 1.660) includes everything acquired for value during the marriage, by either or both spouses and in whichever name; assets acquired by chance; income from the separate property of either spouse earned during the marriage; and improvements to separate property.

Two practical consequences surprise foreign partners. First, title does not matter: an apartment bought during the marriage in one spouse’s sole name, with that spouse’s salary, is common property. Second, location does not matter to the Brazilian rule: partial community reaches assets acquired abroad by a couple whose marriage is governed by Brazilian law, although how the foreign country treats that claim over a foreign asset is a separate question addressed below.

The same default applies to a stable union (união estável): under art. 1.725, property relations between partners follow partial community unless they sign a written contract. Foreign partners who live together in Brazil for a period, without marrying, are frequently in a stable union without realizing it — and without a contract.

Legal basis: freedom to stipulate before the marriage is art. 1.639, caput, do Código Civil (Lei nº 10.406/2002); the default partial community regime, and the rule that it also applies where the agreement is null or ineffective, is art. 1.640, with the form of the choice in its sole paragraph; the content of partial community is arts. 1.658–1.666, with excluded assets in art. 1.659 and included assets in art. 1.660; the regime’s start on the marriage date is art. 1.639, §1º; the stable union default is art. 1.725.

What are the four regimes you can choose?

Articles 1.639 to 1.688 of the Código Civil offer a closed set of regimes, which the couple may adopt as written or combine, within limits, in a mixed regime — for example, separation of specified assets within partial community.

Regime	Articles	What is shared	What is separate	Typical use
Partial community (comunhão parcial) — the default	1.658–1.666	Everything acquired for value during the marriage; income from separate assets	Pre-marital assets; gifts and inheritances; sub-rogated assets	Couples building together from similar starting points
Universal community (comunhão universal)	1.667–1.671	Present and future assets and debts of both, including pre-marital property	Narrow exceptions: assets gifted or inherited with an incommunicability clause, certain debts	Rare today; almost never suitable for binational couples with foreign assets
Final participation in acquisitions (participação final nos aquestos)	1.672–1.686	Nothing during the marriage; on dissolution, each spouse shares in the other’s net acquisitions for value	Each spouse manages their own assets during the marriage	Rare; complex accounting at divorce; used by some business owners
Conventional separation (separação convencional)	1.687–1.688	Nothing; each spouse keeps and manages their own assets and debts, and may freely dispose of or encumber them (art. 1.687)	Everything; both spouses contribute to household expenses in proportion to the income of their work and their assets, unless the pacto stipulates otherwise (art. 1.688)	Most common choice for couples with assets in several countries, businesses, prior children, or unequal wealth
Mandatory separation (separação obrigatória) — imposed by law	1.641	Nothing by statute; under STF Súmula 377, assets acquired during the marriage are shared — but only where joint effort in acquiring them is proven (STJ, EREsp 1.623.858, 2018)	Everything else	Spouses over 70, those marrying in breach of the causes of suspension, and those who need judicial leave to marry; may be set aside by public deed since STF Tema 1236 (2024)

The regime comparison guide sets these side by side in more detail. Conventional separation deserves emphasis because it is the regime most binational couples end up choosing. It does not mean the spouses cannot own things together — they can buy an asset jointly, and it is then co-owned in the shares stated in the deed — but it means nothing becomes common by operation of law. It also does not eliminate every claim: a spouse in need may still claim alimony on divorce, and the surviving spouse remains a necessary heir, as discussed below.

Mandatory separation (art. 1.641) catches those who marry in breach of the causes of suspension (inciso I), a spouse over 70 (inciso II), and all who need judicial leave to marry (inciso III).

Two decisions have reshaped it. For the over-70 rule, the Supremo Tribunal Federal decided Tema 1236 in the leading case ARE 1.309.642/SP (Rel. Min. Luís Roberto Barroso, Plenary, unanimous, 1 February 2024), fixing this thesis: “In marriages and stable unions involving a person over 70 years of age, the separation-of-property regime provided for in art. 1.641, II, of the Civil Code may be set aside by the parties’ express manifestation of will, by public deed.” In substance the Court treated the regime as a facultative legal regime whose alteration produces patrimonial effects only for the future; absent a choice, the statutory rule still applies.

Running the other way, the STJ held in REsp 1.922.347 (Fourth Panel, Rel. Min. Luis Felipe Salomão, judged 7 December 2021) that spouses or partners under mandatory separation may agree a clause more protective than the legal regime — excluding the sharing of acquisitions that Súmula 377 would otherwise allow. The ratchet only turns one way: the pacto may make the regime stricter, never escape it.

Súmula 377 itself is narrower than it reads. The 1964 enunciado says simply that “in the regime of legal separation of property, assets acquired during the marriage are shared.” Since the STJ’s Second Section decided EREsp 1.623.858/MG (23 May 2018), that sharing is not automatic: assets acquired for value are shared only where joint effort (esforço comum) in acquiring them is proven, which the STJ treats as a precondition of the claim itself.

Legal basis: freedom to choose the regime and the mixed-regime possibility is art. 1.639 do Código Civil; universal community is arts. 1.667–1.671; final participation in acquisitions is arts. 1.672–1.686; conventional separation is arts. 1.687–1.688; mandatory separation is art. 1.641, I–III. Sharing of acquisitions under mandatory separation is STF Súmula 377, conditioned on proof of esforço comum by STJ, EREsp 1.623.858/MG, Segunda Seção, 23 May 2018 (a uniformisation precedent, not a repetitive-appeal theme). Setting the over-70 regime aside by public deed is STF Tema 1236, ARE 1.309.642/SP, Plenary, 1 February 2024. A stricter-than-legal pacto under mandatory separation is STJ REsp 1.922.347, Quarta Turma, 7 December 2021.

How is a pacto antenupcial made — and what makes it valid?

The pacto is deliberately formal, and the formalities are where foreign partners’ agreements most often fail.

Public deed, before the wedding. Under art. 1.653, a pacto antenupcial is void unless made by public deed (escritura pública) before a Brazilian notary (tabelião de notas), and ineffective if the marriage does not follow. A private written agreement, an exchange of emails, or a foreign-style contract signed at a lawyer’s office does not satisfy the rule. The deed can be signed at any notary in Brazil and, where the foreign partner cannot attend, by an attorney-in-fact holding a power of attorney with special powers, itself made by public deed or apostilled and translated.

Language. A party who does not understand Portuguese signs with a sworn translator or interpreter (tradutor público) present, whose participation is recorded in the deed. Foreign identity documents — passport, birth certificate, proof of civil status — must be apostilled under the 1961 Hague Convention (Decreto 8.660/2016) and sworn-translated for the marriage habilitação (Código Civil art. 1.525; Lei 6.015/1973, arts. 67–69).

Presented at the habilitação. The deed is submitted to the civil registry during the pre-marriage habilitação, so that the regime is stated on the marriage record and certificate.

Registered to bind third parties. Under art. 1.657, the pacto has no effect against third parties until registered in a special book at the real-estate registry (Registro de Imóveis) of the couple’s domicile. The STJ treats the pacto as fully effective between the spouses from the marriage regardless of that registration; the registration is what allows the regime to be opposed to creditors and buyers. For couples who will own real estate in Brazil, registration is essential; the deed should also be annotated on the property records.

Mandatory content and limits. Art. 1.655 voids any convention, or clause of one, that contravenes an absolute provision of law. Three lines of STJ authority fill this in. The pacto is required whenever the couple departs from partial community (REsp 1.608.590, Third Panel, 2018). A regime of conventional separation established by pacto is immutable unless both spouses expressly agree to change it — one spouse cannot rewrite it alone, and a sociedade de fato cannot be asserted against it (REsp 1.706.812, Third Panel, 2019). And a pacto executed by public deed produces effects on a stable union from its execution, including where the anticipated marriage never takes place, its terms being given effect as a cohabitation contract (REsp 1.483.863, Fourth Panel, 2016; REsp 1.590.811 and AREsp 2.064.895, Fourth Panel, 2023).

Minors. A pacto signed by a party under 18 is effective only with the approval of the legal representative — except where the mandatory separation regime applies in any event (art. 1.654).

Legal basis: form and effectiveness of the pacto antenupcial is art. 1.653 do Código Civil; minors’ pactos, art. 1.654; nullity of clauses contrary to absolute law, art. 1.655; registration for effect against third parties, art. 1.657, and Lei nº 6.015/1973, art. 167, I, 12, and art. 244; habilitação for marriage is Código Civil arts. 1.525–1.532 and Lei nº 6.015/1973, arts. 67–69; sworn translation is Código Civil art. 224 and CPC art. 192.

Speak to counsel — notarial practice varies by state. Requirements for interpreters, for powers of attorney executed abroad, and for annotating the pacto on property records are applied with local variations by state notarial authorities. Have counsel confirm the specific notary’s requirements before the foreign partner travels or signs a power of attorney.

What can the pacto include — and what can it never do?

The pacto is a property instrument. Within that field, Brazilian law allows substantial freedom; outside it, very little.

What it can do. Choose one of the regimes above, or combine them; list the assets each spouse brings to the marriage and their values, which becomes powerful evidence at divorce; provide that specific assets — a foreign business, a pre-marital home, future inheritances and their reinvestment — remain separate; state how household expenses are shared under separation; regulate the management of common assets; and include, in the STJ’s view, clauses that do not offend absolute law even if they are not strictly about property, though their enforceability is case-by-case.

Child support. The pacto cannot waive, limit, or pre-fix child support. The right to support belongs to the child and is non-waivable (art. 1.707); any amount is fixed on need and means at the time (art. 1.694, §1º). Our guides on child support in Brazil and on revising support after moving abroad explain the regime that applies regardless of any pacto.

Spousal support. Waivers of future spousal alimony in a pacto sit uneasily with art. 1.707, and Brazilian courts have been reluctant to enforce a blanket advance waiver against a spouse who later proves need. A pacto can, at most, establish the parties’ expectations; it does not close the door. Confirm the current position with counsel.

Succession. This is the most misunderstood limit. Under art. 1.845, the surviving spouse is a necessary heir, entitled to share in the reserved half of the estate (legítima, art. 1.846), alongside descendants and ascendants. The STJ has settled that choosing conventional separation does not remove the surviving spouse from concurring with the descendants. In REsp 1.382.170/SP (Second Section, 22 April 2015, Rel. p/ acórdão Min. João Otávio de Noronha) the Court held that “in the regime of conventional separation of property, the surviving spouse concurs with the descendants of the deceased. The law excludes concurrence only as regards the regime of legal separation of property provided for in art. 1.641.” Earlier, in REsp 1.472.945/RJ (Third Panel, 23 October 2014), the Court had added that this concurrence “is imposed as a rule of public policy, any agreement to the contrary being null.”

A note on the text: art. 1.829, I, excludes the concurring spouse where the marriage was under universal community or “the regime of mandatory separation of property (art. 1.640, sole paragraph)”. That internal cross-reference is a known drafting error in the Code — art. 1.640 has no such rule and art. 1.641 is the mandatory-separation provision — and courts and commentators read it as pointing to art. 1.641. And art. 426 prohibits any contract about the inheritance of a living person — the pacta corvina rule — so a pacto cannot simply declare that the spouses will not inherit from each other.

A 2024 registry decision in São Paulo is often reported as having opened a door here, and it is worth reading carefully, because what it decided is narrower than the headlines suggest. In Apelação Cível 1000348-35.2024.8.26.0236, judged on 1 October 2024, the Conselho Superior da Magistratura of the São Paulo court, by a majority and over three dissents, ordered the registration of a pacto adopting conventional separation that also contained a reciprocal waiver of the succession right in concurrence with first-class heirs under art. 1.829, I. The rapporteur, the Corregedor Geral da Justiça, reversed the Council’s own earlier precedents on the point.

But the decision expressly declined to bless the clause. Its reasoning was about the scope of the registrar’s review, not about the validity of advance waiver: blocking the whole deed over a single clause deprived the separation regime of effect against third parties, the registrar’s qualification for registering a pacto is narrower than for a constitutive registration of real rights, the spouses had been warned at the notary that the clause might later be invalidated, and — in the Council’s own words — registration “does not mean adherence to the legality of the advance-waiver clause”, whose validity would be assessed by a court if and when the succession opens with a concurrence in it. The Council itself described the validity of advance waiver of the concurrent succession right as a doctrinal and jurisprudential controversy, and noted that renunciation of the legítima by a necessary heir before the succession opens would be possible only de lege ferenda — that is, only if the law were changed.

On the merits — as opposed to registrability — at least one state court has upheld such a clause: the Tribunal de Justiça de Mato Grosso do Sul, Fourth Civil Chamber, in an interlocutory appeal published on 30 September 2025, recorded that its case law recognises the validity of prenuptial clauses “provided they do not entail a waiver of the inheritance itself, but only of the succession concurrence.”

The Superior Tribunal de Justiça has no decision settling the point. What it has decided is the neighbouring and stricter question: its Fourth Panel, in 2024, voided an advance waiver of the legítima — the category the Code plainly forbids. On the narrower waiver of concurrence, the position remains open.

The practical reading for a binational couple: such a clause may now get past a São Paulo registry and has been upheld in one state court, but getting registered is not the same as being enforceable, no decision of the STJ settles it, and a surviving spouse or descendant can still litigate it after the death. Treat it as a calculated risk taken with advice, not as a settled planning tool.

For a binational couple, the practical answer is that the pacto is not an estate plan. Estate planning in Brazil requires a will within the disposable half, and often holding structures or lifetime transfers, which our guides to international inheritance in Brazil and family holding companies discuss.

Legal basis: non-waivability of support is art. 1.707 do Código Civil; the spouse as necessary heir is art. 1.845, the reserved half art. 1.846, and concurrence with descendants art. 1.829, I; the prohibition on contracts about a future inheritance is art. 426; STJ REsp 1.382.170/SP (Segunda Seção, 2015) and REsp 1.472.945/RJ (Terceira Turma, 2014) on the conventional-separation spouse’s heirship; TJSP CSM, Apelação Cível 1000348-35.2024.8.26.0236, judged 1 October 2024, on registration of a concurrence-waiver clause.

You married abroad — which law governs your regime?

Many binational couples marry in the foreign partner’s country and only later register the marriage in Brazil. Brazilian private international law answers the regime question with a domicile rule, not a nationality or place-of-wedding rule.

Article 7, §4, of the LINDB (Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro, Decreto-Lei 4.657/1942) provides that the property regime, legal or contractual, follows the law of the country where the spouses were domiciled at the time of the marriage, and, if their domiciles differed, the law of the first marital domicile. A Brazilian and a Canadian both living in Toronto when they marry are, in Brazil’s eyes, subject to Ontario’s rules and to any domestic contract they signed there; a couple who married in Las Vegas while both domiciled in Rio are subject to Brazilian partial community, whatever Nevada would have said.

Registering the marriage in Brazil. A Brazilian who marries abroad must register the foreign marriage certificate at a Brazilian consulate or, within 180 days of returning, at the civil registry of their domicile (Código Civil art. 1.544; Lei 6.015/1973, art. 32). The regime should be annotated at that point; where the foreign record is silent, Brazilian registries commonly annotate the regime that the applicable foreign law provides or, in doubt, leave the question to a court.

Giving effect to a foreign prenup in Brazil. A marital agreement validly made abroad under the law that governs the regime is, in principle, respected in Brazil, subject to Brazilian public policy (LINDB art. 17) — the forced-heirship and child-support limits above apply regardless — and to formalities: apostille, sworn translation, and registration at the appropriate Brazilian registry when Brazilian real estate is involved. Where the foreign document does not fit Brazilian registry categories, counsel may recommend a confirmatory Brazilian deed.

Living abroad after a Brazilian wedding. The converse also holds: a couple married in Brazil under a Brazilian pacto who later moves to another country carries the Brazilian regime with them as far as Brazil is concerned, but the new country will apply its own conflict rules — which may look to nationality, habitual residence, or the location of assets.

Legal basis: applicable law for the matrimonial property regime is art. 7º, §4º, da LINDB (Decreto-Lei nº 4.657/1942); public-policy limit is art. 17 da LINDB; registration in Brazil of marriages celebrated abroad is art. 1.544 do Código Civil and art. 32 da Lei nº 6.015/1973.

How is a Brazilian pacto treated abroad?

Here the honest answer is that Brazilian counsel does not advise on foreign law. What follows is factual context to help couples ask the right questions of counsel in the other country, and to draft the Brazilian pacto so that it gives that counsel the most to work with.

United States (factual context only — not US legal advice). Marital property is state law. A majority of states have adopted a version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, under which a premarital agreement is generally enforceable unless the challenging party proves it was not signed voluntarily or was unconscionable when made and preceded by inadequate disclosure. Several states add their own requirements — independent counsel, waiting periods, fairness at enforcement — and some are community-property states with their own default rules. A Brazilian pacto is a foreign contract that a US court will assess under its own standards.

England and Wales (factual context only). Prenuptial agreements are not automatically binding, but since Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 courts give effect to an agreement freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless, in the circumstances, it would not be fair to hold the parties to it — with particular attention to the needs of the parties and children.

European Union (factual context only). Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes, in force in the participating Member States since 2019, allows spouses to choose the applicable law (habitual residence or nationality of either spouse at the time of choice) and coordinates jurisdiction; non-participating states apply their own rules.

Canada, Australia and others (factual context only). Provincial and federal statutes govern “domestic contracts” or “binding financial agreements”, typically requiring independent legal advice and disclosure.

Drafting the Brazilian pacto for a foreign reader. Experience suggests a pacto that will be examined abroad should include: a schedule of each party’s assets and liabilities with values and currency; a recital that each party received independent legal advice, naming counsel in each country; a recital about language, translation, and time to review before signing; execution well before the wedding; a statement of the governing law and forum chosen under LINDB and any foreign choice-of-law rule available; and a certified translation made at the time. Many couples execute mirror agreements — a Brazilian pacto and a foreign agreement drafted to be consistent — so that each country’s court sees an instrument in its own form. Our comparison of a Brazilian prenup against a foreign one sets out the structural differences that mirror drafting has to bridge.

Speak to counsel in both countries. Nothing in this section is advice on US, UK, EU, Canadian, or Australian law. The Brazilian pacto should be drafted with the foreign counsel’s requirements in view, and the foreign agreement with the Brazilian limits in view.

Can you change the regime after the wedding?

Yes — but under federal law today only through the courts.

Article 1.639, §2º, allows the regime to be changed by judicial authorization, on a reasoned joint petition of both spouses, after the court verifies the legitimacy of the reasons and preserves the rights of third parties. The procedure is set out in CPC art. 734: the petition is signed by both spouses and states the reasons; on receiving it the judge orders the Ministério Público to be notified and an edital published announcing the intended change, and may decide only after 30 days from that publication. The spouses may also propose an alternative means of publicising the change to protect third parties. Typical reasons include the start of a business by one spouse, inheritance planning, or the couple’s move abroad. Creditors are protected: the change does not prejudice debts contracted under the previous regime, and courts commonly require certificates of no pending claims.

Extrajudicial change — a state-level development, not federal law. In August 2025 the Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Espírito Santo issued Provimento 11/2025, inserting an art. 215-A into its state notarial rules to allow the change of regime to be done directly at a notary in that state. It is a state administrative act, and family-law commentators have questioned whether a state corregedoria can create an extrajudicial route where federal law — Código Civil art. 1.639, §2º, and CPC art. 734 — provides a judicial one, since civil law is a matter of exclusive federal competence.

It also goes further than the national rule. The CNJ does permit an extrajudicial change of regime — but only in a stable union, under the provisions introduced by Provimento CNJ 141/2023 and now carried in the national notarial code. For a marriage, the national code provides no extrajudicial route. Espírito Santo’s rule covers both.

Separately, a bill to update the Código Civil is before the Senate: PL 4/2025, presented by Senator Rodrigo Pacheco on 31 January 2025. Among much else it would rewrite art. 1.639, §2º, so that after the marriage or stable union “the property regime may be modified by public deed”, effective from the act of alteration and without prejudice to third parties; it would revoke art. 1.641 entirely; and it would add paragraphs to art. 426 expressly allowing spouses to waive the status of heir reciprocally in a pacto antenupcial — which is precisely the change the São Paulo Council described as possible only de lege ferenda. As of August 2026 the bill is still before a temporary Senate committee constituted to examine it, and has not reached the Chamber of Deputies.

None of this changes the federal rule today. Couples should plan on a court proceeding under art. 1.639, §2º, and CPC art. 734, and treat any extrajudicial route as something counsel must confirm is available — and will be recognised — in the specific state, by the registries, and by any foreign counsel who will later have to rely on the change.

Effects. A change of regime is not retroactive by default: assets already common remain common, and assets already separate remain separate, unless the spouses partition and re-allocate them in the same proceeding. For a couple that married without a pacto and now wants separation before acquiring a foreign property or launching a business, the change can be worth the effort, but it must be sequenced before the acquisition.

Legal basis: change of regime by judicial authorization on a reasoned joint petition, with the reasons verified and third parties’ rights preserved, is art. 1.639, §2º, do Código Civil; the procedure — joint signed petition, notification of the Ministério Público, publication of an edital and a decision only after 30 days — is art. 734 do CPC/2015, with the alternative publicity option in its §2º. Provimento CGJES nº 11/2025 (August 2025), inserting art. 215-A into the Espírito Santo notarial code, is a state notarial rule, not federal law; nationally, the CNJ’s extrajudicial route (Provimento CNJ 141/2023, carried into the national notarial code) covers the stable union only, not marriage. PL 4/2025, updating the Código Civil, was presented in the Senate on 31 January 2025 and remains before a temporary Senate committee.

Hypothetical illustration — not a real client. A British engineer domiciled in Manchester and a Brazilian architect domiciled in Curitiba plan to marry in Curitiba and then live in the UK. He owns a flat in Manchester and a share in a family company; she owns a pre-marital apartment in Curitiba and expects to inherit part of a rural property. They sign a pacto antenupcial choosing conventional separation, with a schedule of assets in pounds and reais, a recital of independent advice in both countries, and an interpreter at the notary; the deed is presented at the habilitação and registered at the Curitiba real-estate registry. Their English solicitor prepares a mirror agreement consistent with the pacto. Each also makes a will within the disposable half of their estates. Every distinguishing detail here is invented — the cities, professions, assets, and sequence. Nothing in this example predicts any outcome.

What are the most common mistakes?

• Signing a private “prenup” at a lawyer’s office. In Brazil it is void; only a public deed counts (art. 1.653).
• Signing after the wedding. The regime is fixed on the marriage date; later changes require court authorization.
• Forgetting the real-estate registry. Without registration under art. 1.657, the regime cannot be opposed to creditors and buyers.
• Assuming separation of property settles inheritance. The spouse remains a necessary heir and still concurs with the descendants (REsp 1.382.170); a will is needed.
• Trying to waive child support or pre-fix it. Void (art. 1.707).
• Ignoring the stable union. Cohabiting partners are in partial community by default (art. 1.725) unless they sign a contract.
• Marrying abroad while domiciled in Brazil and expecting the foreign default to apply. LINDB art. 7, §4, looks to domicile, not the wedding venue.
• Assuming the Brazilian pacto works automatically abroad. It is a foreign contract in the other country; mirror it and get advice there.

At a glance

Question	Short answer
No prenup — what regime?	Partial community (CC art. 1.640): acquisitions during marriage are shared
How do we choose another regime?	Pacto antenupcial by public deed before the wedding (art. 1.653); register at the real-estate registry (art. 1.657)
Which regimes exist?	Partial community, universal community, final participation in acquisitions, conventional separation; mandatory separation by law
Most common choice for binational couples?	Conventional separation (arts. 1.687–1.688), with a schedule of assets
Can it exclude the spouse from inheriting?	Not by itself — the spouse is a necessary heir (art. 1.845); a concurrence-waiver clause may be registrable in São Paulo since the CSM’s 2024 decision, but registration is not a ruling on its validity
Can it fix child support?	No (art. 1.707)
Married abroad — which law?	Law of the spouses’ domicile or first marital domicile (LINDB art. 7, §4)
Enforceable abroad?	Foreign-law question; draft for the foreign reader and mirror it
Change later?	Court authorization on a reasoned joint petition, with MP notice and a 30-day edital (CC art. 1.639, §2º; CPC art. 734)

Key terms

• Pacto antenupcial — prenuptial agreement by public deed.
• Escritura pública / tabelião — public deed / notary.
• Regime de bens — matrimonial property regime.
• Comunhão parcial / universal — partial / universal community.
• Separação convencional / obrigatória — conventional / mandatory separation.
• Habilitação — pre-marriage registry procedure.
• Herdeiro necessário / legítima — necessary heir / reserved half of the estate.
• União estável — stable union.

Key takeaways

• Default is partial community (CC art. 1.640): everything acquired for value during the marriage is shared, whatever the title and wherever located, as far as Brazilian law is concerned.
• A pacto antenupcial must be a public deed signed before the wedding (art. 1.653) and registered at the real-estate registry to bind third parties (art. 1.657).
• Conventional separation is the usual choice for binational couples — but it does not remove the spouse’s heirship (REsp 1.382.170) and cannot touch child support (art. 1.707).
• Succession needs its own instruments: a will within the disposable half and, often, holding structures. A concurrence-waiver clause may now be registrable in São Paulo, but the 2024 decision that allowed it said in terms that registration does not decide the clause’s validity.
• Married abroad? Domicile decides the regime under LINDB art. 7, §4, not the wedding venue.
• Abroad, the pacto is a foreign contract. Draft it with schedules, independent-advice recitals, and translations, and mirror it with foreign counsel.
• Changing the regime later requires court authorization (CC art. 1.639, §2º; CPC art. 734) under current federal law, whatever a single state’s notarial rules now permit.

Related guides on this site

• Marriage to a foreigner in Brazil: complete guide
• Common-law marriage and stable unions in Brazil
• International divorce in Brazil: jurisdiction and assets
• Divorce in Brazil: complete guide
• International inheritance in Brazil
• Family holding companies and asset protection in Brazil
• Apostille and Hague document validation for Brazil

How ZS Advogados can help

A pacto antenupcial for a binational couple is a drafting problem with a deadline: the regime must be chosen with both countries’ rules in view, the deed must be executed in the right form before the wedding, the foreign partner’s documents and language must be handled at the notary, the registry steps must be completed, and the succession consequences must be addressed by separate instruments rather than assumed away. Where the couple married abroad, the analysis runs in reverse — identifying the governing law, registering the marriage and regime in Brazil, and giving the foreign agreement effect before Brazilian registries.

Our team advises Brazilian and foreign partners on the choice of regime, drafts and executes the pacto with sworn translators and powers of attorney where needed, coordinates with foreign counsel on mirror agreements, handles the habilitação and registrations, and plans the will and holding structures that the pacto cannot replace. We work in English and Portuguese. Read more about our cross-border family law practice.

• Family law — regimes, the pacto antenupcial, stable unions, and later changes of regime
• International law — governing-law analysis, foreign marriages and agreements, coordination with foreign counsel
• Estate planning — wills, forced heirship, and holding structures for binational families

Book a consultation to have the regime choice, the deed, and the cross-border plan reviewed before the wedding date.

Technical review by the ZS Advogados Associados team, including co-founding partner Karina Peres Silvério (OAB/SP 331.050) and founding partner Zachariah Zagol (OAB/SP 351.356). Contact: contato@zsassociados.com — +55 (18) 3908-1653 — Presidente Prudente, SP.

Sources and legal basis

• Lei nº 10.406/2002 — Código Civil (arts. 426, 1.525–1.532, 1.544, 1.639–1.688, 1.694, 1.707, 1.725, 1.829, 1.845–1.846) (Planalto)
• Decreto-Lei nº 4.657/1942 — LINDB (arts. 7º, §4º, and 17) (Planalto)
• Lei nº 6.015/1973 — Lei de Registros Públicos (arts. 32, 67–69, 167, 244) (Planalto)
• Decreto nº 8.660/2016 — 1961 Hague Apostille Convention (Planalto)
• Lei nº 13.105/2015 — Código de Processo Civil (art. 192) (Planalto)
• STJ — “Felizes para sempre, nos termos do contrato”: the STJ’s case law on the pacto antenupcial (2024) (stj.jus.br)
• IBDFAM — Provimento 11/2025 CNCGJ-ES and extrajudicial change of regime (ibdfam.org.br)
• Senado Federal — PL 4/2025, updating the Código Civil (Senador Rodrigo Pacheco, 31 January 2025) (senado.leg.br)
• TJES — Provimento CGJES nº 11/2025, inserting art. 215-A (tjes.jus.br)
• CNJ — Provimento nº 141/2023, extrajudicial change of the property regime in a stable union (atos.cnj.jus.br)
• CNB/SP — full text of the CSM acórdão, Apelação Cível 1000348-35.2024.8.26.0236, judged 1 October 2024 (cnbsp.org.br)
• IBDFAM — the CSM’s earlier position refusing registration of an inheritance-waiver clause, Apelação 1022765-36.2023.8.26.0100 (ibdfam.org.br)

---

This guide is for informational and educational purposes only, in line with Provimento No. 205/2021 of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB). It is not legal advice, an opinion, or an offer of services, does not refer to any specific case, and does not guarantee any result. It describes Brazilian law and practice; references to the law of the United States, England and Wales, the European Union, Canada, Australia, or any other country are factual context only and not legal advice on those systems, on which the reader should consult qualified counsel there. Case law on succession clauses in prenuptial agreements and on extrajudicial changes of regime is evolving; rules and provisions are cited as of August 2026, and changes after that date are not reflected. Each situation requires individual analysis by a licensed attorney. Last updated August 2026.