Marriage of Schweitzer

Fabian Schweitzer (defendant) came into his marriage to Frances Schweitzer (plaintiff) with substantial separate property, all of which was eventually commingled with community funds. For estate-planning purposes, Frances and Fabian executed a three-prong community-property agreement stating that all property owned (1) currently or (2) in the future by either spouse would be transmuted into community property and (3) that all community property would vest in the surviving spouse upon the death of the other spouse. After approximately 19 years of marriage, Frances filed for divorce and sought to enforce the community-property agreement. Fabian challenged, arguing based on extrinsic evidence that the community-property agreement was an estate-planning document that was not intended to immediately transmute all property into community property upon execution. Fabian admitted that he did not read the community-property agreement before signing it. Frances countered, arguing that she signed the agreement intending for it to immediately transmute all property into community property. In other words, although the third prong of the agreement took effect only upon death, Frances understood and intended the first two prongs to take effect immediately. The trial court, relying on extrinsic evidence, held that the community-property agreement was unenforceable because it was intended only as an estate-planning document. The appellate court reversed, holding that the community-property agreement was enforceable and that the trial court erred by admitting extrinsic evidence contradicting the clear written terms of the agreement. Fabian appealed. At the Washington Supreme Court’s directive, both Fabian and Frances submitted additional briefs promoting and opposing, respectively, the theory of mutual mistake as a ground to invalidate the community-property agreement.