One of my guilty pleasures is reading the Ask Amy newspaper column by Amy Dickinson.  So I was disappointed to see this column about a bride-to-be who questioned her in-law's insistence on a prenuptial agreement.   Amy and the bride felt the in-laws were putting undue pressure on the groom by pointing out the absence of a prenuptial might mean the parents would not leave the groom an inheritance.  Amy recognized that the parents might be concerned that the inheritance would be lost in a divorce but ended her thoughts with "surely [the parents] have the ability to plan their estate around this possibility." 

What Amy fails to grasp is that the parents ARE planning their estate around this possibility.   Requiring a child to get a marital agreement to protect the inheritance from divorce is the strongest way to ensure the inheritance stays in the family.  Could the parents provide for the son in the form of a trust?  Yes, but the protection would not be as strong because the courts in many states can and do count the benefits of a trust in determining what is marital property or calculating an award of maintenance, a/k/a alimony.  So the parents are letting their son know that if there is no prenuptial agreement they may feel their own legacy is at risk and they may restrict or remove the son's inheritance to be sure that it isn't lost in a divorce.  That is estate planning.

Note that the prenup need not restrict the couple's rights to any assets except the inheritance.  My personal (not professional) opinion is that if someone about to become an in-law won't agree that the inheritance from her parents-in-law is not hers in the event of a divorce then the parents have reason to think their fears are very, very real.  Not all of my clients agree, and the camps are about equally divided among those who favor marital agreements for this purpose and those who decide not to require one.  But the whole point is it's the parents' money and they can do with it what they see fit.