Dewberry v. George

In 1981, in contemplation of marriage, Emanuel George, Jr. (defendant) and Carla Dewberry (defendant) entered into an oral prenuptial agreement that each spouse’s income and property would remain that spouse’s separate property and would not become community property even if earned or acquired during the marriage. George and Dewberry married in 1986. During the marriage, Dewberry independently purchased and financed three homes, two of which functioned as the family’s homes, and paid all of the expenses related to each home from her separate funds. George came into the marriage with real property and maintained that property using his separate assets. After George and Dewberry’s first child was born, they set up a joint account for family expenses into which each spouse put a set monthly amount. Any family expenses covered using separate funds were reimbursed from the joint account. George and Dewberry kept meticulous records detailing the division of separate and joint property and expenses. In 2000, Dewberry filed for divorce and moved to enforce the oral prenuptial agreement. By the time of the divorce, George and Dewberry had accumulated a modest amount of community property, but Dewberry had accumulated significantly more separate property than George. Dewberry’s annual income had increased from roughly $40,000 in 1981 to $1 million in 2000, while George’s income remained in the $40,000 to $50,000 range throughout the marriage. The trial court held that the oral prenuptial agreement was enforceable, awarded each spouse his or her separate property, and gave George the bulk of the modest community property to account for the income and asset disparity. George appealed, arguing that enforcing the oral prenuptial agreement violated both the statute of frauds and Washington’s public policy favoring the creation of community property over separate property.