In Re Marriage of Dawley
551 p.2d 323, 17 Cal. 3d 342, 131 Cal. Rptr. 3 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement is void as against public policy only if its objective terms promote or encourage marital dissolution, not merely because the parties subjectively contemplated the possibility of a short-term marriage when they signed it.
Facts:
- Betty Johnson, a tenured teacher, and James Dawley, an engineer, resumed an intimate relationship in May 1964.
- Two weeks later, Betty discovered she was pregnant and feared losing her teaching job.
- After an acrimonious discussion, both agreed to a temporary marriage to solve the problem.
- James insisted on an antenuptial agreement to protect his property and earnings; Betty insisted he support her and her daughter, Carolyn, for a period of time.
- Both parties consulted with separate attorneys before signing the agreement on June 11, 1964.
- The agreement stipulated that all earnings and property acquired by either party during the marriage would be their separate property, and that James would support Betty and her daughter for a minimum of 14 months.
- The couple married two days after signing the agreement and remained married for eight years, separating in July 1972.
- Throughout the marriage, they maintained separate bank accounts and consistently treated their earnings and property as separate, in accordance with the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- James Dawley filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in the trial court.
- The trial court granted the dissolution and, relying on the antenuptial agreement, found there was no community property to be divided.
- The trial court awarded all property purchased with James's separate income to him.
- Betty Johnson, the wife, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the division of property to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an antenuptial agreement that provides for the separate ownership of property acquired during marriage violate public policy if the parties entered into it without contemplating that the marriage would last until death?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
No. An antenuptial agreement does not violate public policy because the parties contemplated a short-term marriage; it is void only if the objective terms of the agreement itself promote or encourage dissolution. The court disapproves the dictum from In re Marriage of Higgason suggesting that such agreements must be made in contemplation of a lifelong marriage. A test based on the subjective contemplation of the parties is unworkable, as it would jeopardize the validity of all antenuptial agreements by making them dependent on unreliable testimony about past intentions. The proper test is an objective one: do the terms of the contract facilitate, encourage, or promote divorce? Here, the agreement's terms merely provided that the parties' earnings and accumulations would be separate property, which is permissible. The provision for 14 months of minimum support for Betty and her daughter did not encourage dissolution; rather, it provided Betty with financial assurance, thereby deterring a premature dissolution.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and modernizes the law governing antenuptial agreements in California by replacing a vague, subjective standard with a clear, objective one. By disapproving the Higgason dictum, the court made prenuptial agreements more reliable and enforceable, as they can no longer be invalidated by a party's subsequent claim that they did not expect the marriage to last forever. The ruling shifts the judicial focus from the parties' state of mind at the time of signing to the actual language and effect of the agreement's terms. This provides greater certainty for couples wishing to structure their property rights and reflects a more realistic approach to modern marriage planning.
