Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D and P started dating in 1980 while they were both living in California. P had just graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law and was working toward becoming a CPA at Arthur Andersen. George was a college-educated music industry executive. They agreed to marry if (1) P would always be fully employed, (2) each party's income and property would be treated as separate property, (3) each party would own a home to return to if the marriage failed, and (4) P would not get fat. P agreed to these conditions. This discussion took place in California, a community property state. Neither party was particularly wealthy at the beginning of their relationship. They married in 1986. They continually affirmed this agreement through words and actions. They deposited their incomes into separate accounts, which they used for their personal expenses and investments. After the birth of their first child, they opened a joint checking account in order to handle certain agreed household expenses. By 2000, when they separated, they had accumulated minimal community property in the form of joint accounts and jointly purchased possessions. They held numerous investment, bank, and retirement accounts as individuals, and the spouse who had created and contributed to those accounts was considered the sole owner and manager of the assets in those accounts. The primary beneficiaries of their individual accounts were the parties' children, or alternatively, the estate of the spouse who funded them. P purchased three houses as her separate property, securing financing separately in all instances by signing promissory notes or asking her sister to cosign. One she purchased to fulfill the third condition of the prenuptial agreement. The latter two houses, both located in Seattle, served as the family's primary residences. P treated these houses as her separate property by paying for maintenance, improvements, and the down payment and mortgage with funds from her separate accounts. D paid P a set amount each month toward living expenses, such as utilities, and P repaid D for any maintenance costs he incurred. D already owned real property in Texas and California that he had acquired before their marriage. P left Arthur Andersen to become an associate in a Seattle law firm. P worked in sales and marketing in the entertainment and hospitality industries. P eventually became a partner at her law firm, her annual salary increased rapidly, totaling over $1 million in 2000. D's salary remained constant in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The trial court found by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the parties had entered into an oral prenuptial agreement, despite D's denial of the agreement's existence. The trial court also found that there had been 'complete performance' of that agreement during the parties' marriage and, thus, the parties' property consisted primarily of separate property. It awarded P $2.3 million, or approximately 82 percent of the parties' property, which consisted almost entirely of real and personal property that P had acquired during the marriage, as well as her premarriage separate property. D received property worth $600,000, consisting of his real and personal separate property from before and during the marriage, the bulk of the parties' community property, plus $300,000 cash from P's separate accounts. Part of the trial court's award to D consisted of a cash equivalent of 11 percent of the Thorndyke house value, or $74,250, based upon evidence of some commingling of property interests in the Thorndyke house (i.e., George's possible liability on the mortgage, his reliance on the house as a primary residence, and traceable community funds used for the down payment).
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co