Prenups offer couples clarity on property, but remain uncommon

For many couples, discussions about marriage often focus on the wedding, the home they will build and the family they hope to have. But questions about who will own what, how income will be used and what happens to property if the marriage ends are less likely to feature in those conversations. Yet lawyers say intending spouses in Rwanda can legally agree in advance on how their property will be managed, an option that remains relatively unfamiliar to many people despite being recognised under the law. ALSO READ: New law for family and persons gazetted: What you should know Under Article 168 of the current family law, couples can agree before marriage on how their property and financial interests will be managed. Such arrangements are commonly known as prenuptial agreements, or prenups, although Rwandan law refers to them as a matrimonial property regime based on an agreement between intending spouses. The agreement is drawn up as an authentic deed and signed by both intending spouses before a notary. It must then be submitted to the civil registrar at least seven days before the marriage ceremony for review. The registrar checks whether its contents comply with public order and Rwandan good morals and can require the couple to amend or complete the agreement before the marriage. The law allows the agreement to cover a range of issues, including each spouse’s contribution to household expenses, children’s maintenance and education, management of property, treatment of debts, unpaid care work and what happens to property in the event of death or divorce. ALSO READ: Inconsistent family, land rulings prompt judges to seek uniform interpretation According to Jean Paul Ibambe, a lawyer based in Kigali, the arrangement gives intending spouses room to determine how specific assets, income, debts and other property interests will be managed during the marriage. “The option comes alongside the three established matrimonial property regimes: community of property, limited community of property and separation of property. But many couples remain unfamiliar with the range of choices available to them and often enter marriage without sufficiently discussing their financial expectations,” he said. Ibambe said the personalised arrangement allows couples to discuss their property and financial responsibilities before marriage and formally record their agreement. “For instance, a couple could agree that a house owned by one spouse before marriage would remain that spouse’s property, while income generated from the house could be contributed towards household expenses such as children’s school fees,” he said. The purpose, Ibambe said, is not necessarily to separate spouses financially, but to establish clear expectations about how they will contribute to and manage the household. “The agreement does not give couples unlimited freedom to determine their obligations. They cannot use it to waive responsibilities that the law imposes on spouses or parents. For example, a couple cannot agree that one parent will have no responsibility to support and raise their children, or that one spouse will be exempt from all household responsibilities,” he said. “However, contributions can take different forms depending on each spouse’s circumstances. A spouse with an income may contribute financially, while one without paid employment may contribute through household work such as cooking, cleaning and caring for the family.” Why awareness matters Ibambe said greater awareness of the arrangement could help couples address property-related disagreements before they become sources of conflict. “In many marriages, disagreements over money and property emerge only after the relationship has deteriorated. By then, spouses may have different expectations about what belongs to whom and what each person should receive,” he said. The lawyer said some people enter marriage assuming that after several years they will automatically be entitled to a share of their spouse’s property if the marriage ends. “That assumption can be misleading because the matrimonial regime chosen by the couple, together with any valid agreement governing their property, can affect how assets are treated. The personalised regime offers couples an opportunity to establish their expectations before disputes arise,” he said. “Greater awareness of the option could greatly help couples have difficult conversations about money and property before marriage, rather than waiting until disagreements emerge during the marriage or divorce proceedings.” Innocent Muramira, founder and managing partner of MURAMIRA & Co Advocates, said awareness of the available matrimonial property arrangements remains limited, with many couples continuing to opt for the community property regime. “Many couples still prefer the community of property regime for several reasons. Other regimes are less commonly chosen. However, prenups are becoming more common, particularly among couples who are more informed about their legal options,” Muramira said. He said the personalised matrimonial property arrangement gives couples greater flexibility to determine how their assets and financial obligations will be handled during and after marriage. “I would definitely advise couples to consider prenups because they have proved useful in many countries and can be an effective way of managing property during and after marriage,” he said. Muramira said the arrangement can become particularly important when a marriage ends, as the couple’s prior agreement can help establish how property and other responsibilities should be handled. He said agreements between spouses must comply with legal requirements, particularly when they form part of arrangements for divorce. “A divorce may sometimes be rejected or delayed if the agreement does not comply with public order and morality, or if it does not clearly address the best interests of the children and the sharing of property, where applicable,” he said.

News

Prenups offer couples clarity on property, but remain uncommon