In Re Marriage of Dawley

Summary

Before marrying, the parties agreed that each spouse's earnings and property acquired by purchase would be separate property. After about eight years of marriage, the wife challenged the agreement as against public policy, as procured by undue influence, and as impliedly rescinded, and she claimed a community interest in a sloop. The husband paid the down payment and every loan payment from separate funds, but both spouses signed the credit union loan and took title. The court held that the agreement was valid because its terms did not promote dissolution, that substantial evidence supported the findings of no undue influence and no rescission, and that the sloop was the husband's separate property. The judgment was affirmed.

What it means for the financial analysis

Where a valid marital agreement makes earnings and purchased property separate, the court looked to the agreement's terms and the parties' conduct, not the community presumption for property acquired on credit, so the first analytical step is the contract. Even so, the husband's separate-source down payment and loan payments supported the result, so records of separate-fund payments remain useful, though the court did not decide how such facts would be weighed without an agreement.

Also available on CourtListener.