The second one declares separação absoluta de bens assim:

Cláusula terceira – Que no tempo de duração deste contrato o regime adotado é o da separação absoluta de bens, ou seja, todos e quaisquer bens móveis ou imóveis, direitos e rendimentos, adquiridos por qualquer dos CONVIVENTES antes ou durante a vigência do presente contrato pertencerão a quem os adquiriu, não se comunicando com os bens da outra parte; os bens aqüestos não se comunicarão.

and it adds some very stark, in my gut-opinion unenforceable clause:

Cláusula quarta – Que OS CONVIVENTES, neste ato, renunciam de forma irretratável e irrevogável, a qualquer ajuda material, a título de alimentos, em caso de extinção do presente contrato, por quaisquer de suas formas, resguardado o direito dos filhos comuns porventura existentes.

OK, I guess the last part saves the right of common children ... of course it would never stand. But interestingly it is trying to exclude the right to spousal alimony, which, as we have already said, may be thrown out ... although the appeals court case we were looking at before merely seemed to be stating that the amount of alimony set in the antenuptial was unchanged because the petitioner had not proven his case for changed circumstances. May be had he not written an amount of alimony into the contract, it would have worked better.

I promised her that even if we would split now, I'd support her for 6 more months. I wonder if I should put that in as a baseline. That way it would not be knocked down under the pretense that the contract was unconscionable and unfair (in US this damocles sword of "equitability" or "fairness" hangs over any pre-nup.)

The first one is very long in the separação total de bens clause, but it is very thorough. I like it for a business transaction. For a personal piece it is a bit heavy. My poor girl, she'll be blown away.

b) Portanto, os CONTRATANTES, livres de qualquer induzimento, erro, dolo ou coação, pactuam expressamente, neste instrumento particular, em caráter irrevogável e irretratável, que não desejam e jamais desejaram, em hipótese alguma o condomínio, comunhão e/ou co-proprietário resultante de referida união, presunção essa contida no artigo 1.725 do Código Civil vigente (anterior ao artigo 5º da Lei 9.278/96, valendo-se, de comum acordo, desse dispositivo legal (artigo 1725 C.C) para estipular por escrito em sentido contrário a tal presunção e administração patrimonial comum dela decorrente, seja pela inexistência efetiva de qualquer patrimônio adquirido de forma comum, seja por expressamente manifestarem sua vontade de manter patrimônio distinto e individual, em regime de absoluta e completa separação de bens passados, presentes e futuros, sem qualquer tipo de direito e/ou meação em relação aos bens do outro, em qualquer tempo, sejam bens imóveis, móveis, participação societárias, direitos, créditos, investimentos e assim por diante ou, ainda, bens resultantes de doação, herança, bens futuros adquiridos onerosamente ao longo da União, quaisquer acréscimos patrimoniais, eventuais frutos e rendimentos advindos de tais bens e assim por diante.

And excludes alimony like this:

h) Considerando que os CONTRATANTES exercem atividades próprias e cada um tem meios de prover o próprio sustento, declaram expressamente que desistem, reciprocamente, de requer qualquer pedido de pensão e/ou prestação a título de alimentos.

Clearly, this passage has caught on to the impossibility to exclude sustenance based on need. I suppose the right way to hash this out would be to refer to the law that stipulates the right to need-based maintenance and clarifies the parameters based on which such need is going to be computed. And do it in such a way that it might serve to set a basis for child support related income assessment.

I wonder, in Brazilian contract law, are severability and entire aqreement clauses used? Severability seems a useful feature especially when dealing with possibly unenfoceable or even unlawful clauses. Finally, are there clauses that foresee the modification of laws? (Like referring to successor laws?) Any clauses that may state that this agreement and all legal quotes it contains translates in its intention to other jurisdictions? Just to prepare the U.S. pre-nup here already.

Edited by Squiddie - 23 May 2012 at 22:56

STJ: O dever de prestar alimentos ao ex-consorte não deve ser por tempo indefinido

but this seems just a wish, because the facts presented in this article speak alarmingly differently:

Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) concluiu que outros fatores também devem ser considerados na análise do pedido de exoneração, como a capacidade de trabalho do alimentado e o tempo necessário para que ele recuperasse a condição econômica que detinha durante o relacionamento.

This means to me a right of preserved standard of living. If you ex never had a good job nor education to get one, and lived well with me, I buy the duty to provide the same standard of living until she can make it herself, which she never can. So WTF??

Germany has changed those laws in 2008. Most US states do not have them. Maintenance is temporary, 3 years max 10 years is long. And maintenance is no longer keeping the standard of living. Where are the signs this changes in Brazil? And what can the author of a pacto antenupcial do to alleviate this?

And to make matters worse, we hear here 5, 4 or minimum 2 salarios minimos, and when I check it is R$700-1200 in RJ. 4 times that much for life is crazy in my opinion. Am I missing something?

"Cláusula quarta – Que OS CONVIVENTES, neste ato, renunciam de forma irretratável e irrevogável, a qualquer ajuda material, a título de alimentos, em caso de extinção do presente contrato, por quaisquer de suas formas, resguardado o direito dos filhos comuns porventura existentes. "

This is indeed void. The right to alimentos is irrenouncable.

As I said each case is different. Your wife of 40 years that always took care of the children and never worked on one side of the balance, on the other, the 24 yo chick you've been married to for two years. In each case the judge will decide what is reasonable. The first will get alimentos for life. The second untill she finds a job or a year, whichever. Ones first.

Originally posted by Squiddie My kids could be held responsible to pay support for my GF Art. 1.694. Podem os parentes, os cônjuges ou companheiros pedir uns aos outros os alimentos de que necessitem para viver de modo compatível com a sua condição social, inclusive para atender às necessidades de sua educação.

Your kids are not parents to your GF. Your parents are however.

Originally posted by Squiddie Worse even, there is an implication that the recipient can ask for more than bare-bones sustenance, because there is a limit that when she is culpable then her maintenance would be bare minimum. § 2º Os alimentos serão apenas os indispensáveis à subsistência, quando a situação de necessidade resultar de culpa de quem os pleiteia.

This does not apply to união estável, and does no longer apply to a divorce, as there is no longer anything like "culpa" in a divorce. Sice the emenda 66 of the constitution, the only thing one can alledge against a divorce is that there never was a marriage.

Before the emendment, a divorce was only granted is there was someone to blame. This no longer has any effect, so the bare bones alimony is out of the door too.

Originally posted by Squiddie Art. 1.704. Se um dos cônjuges separados judicialmente vier a necessitar de alimentos, será o outro obrigado a prestá-los mediante pensão a ser fixada pelo juiz, caso não tenha sido declarado culpado na ação de separação judicial.

Legal separation no longer exists.

Originally posted by Squiddie But that only means that if she is not culpable she can ask for more than bare minimum. (The dreaded continuation of same standard of living???)

Yes, but not in the biblical form of "ask and thou wil get". It all depends on what the judge considers reasonable.

I meant: Art. 1.700. A obrigação de prestar alimentos transmite-se aos herdeiros do devedor, na forma do art. 1.694.

Yes, and art 1694 speaks about parents. Your kids are not parents of your GF.

This would apply to your kids and their mother in case you die.