The situation
Our clients were about to marry in Shenzhen. He was an American who had co-founded a hardware company with shares held through a US entity; she was a Shenzhen professional who owned an apartment bought before they met, partly with her parents' money. Both wanted certainty: his co-founders required that his shares stay separate, and her parents wanted assurance that the apartment would remain hers. Neither wanted a document that felt hostile or one-sided.
Chinese law allows spouses to agree in writing on how their property is owned, and the parties to a foreign-related marriage can choose the law that governs their marital property, within limits. But an agreement cannot waive the court's assessment of children's best interests or a parent's duty of support, and it only helps if it is consistent with how assets are actually registered.
What we did
- Separate conversations first. We met each of them, recommended that he also take independent advice from a US lawyer on the US side, and made sure neither felt pressured by the wedding date.
- Drafted a bilingual agreement in English and Chinese with both versions equally authentic and carefully reconciled, so there was no gap between what he read and what she read.
- Chose the governing law deliberately. After discussing where they expected to live, the agreement selected Chinese law for property located in China and set out clear rules for assets abroad, with US counsel reviewing the US-facing provisions.
- Defined each asset precisely: the apartment and its mortgage, his shareholding and any future growth or vesting, savings, and how income during the marriage and new joint purchases would be treated.
- Left children out of it. The agreement expressly did not attempt to decide custody or child support, which Chinese courts decide based on the children's interests at the time.
- Notarised it in Shenzhen. Notarisation is not required for validity, but it provides strong evidence that both signed voluntarily and understood the contents.
The outcome
The couple signed and notarised the agreement three weeks before registering their marriage. Both told us that working through it together had made them more comfortable, not less. They now have a document that each fully understands, in their own language, that matches the property records in both countries.
Results depend on the specific facts of each matter; past outcomes do not guarantee similar results.