## Facts

- Virginia Kirk Cord and Errett L. Cord married in 1931 and remained married until Errett’s death in 1974.
- Errett’s estate was valued at about $39.25 million, and his will characterized the entire estate as his separate property.
- Virginia sued the coexecutors of Errett’s estate to establish that the estate included community property and that she was entitled to one-half.
- A 1953 postnuptial agreement between the spouses purported to make a full settlement of both support and property rights.
- The agreement included provisions limiting Errett’s support obligations and provisions in which Virginia released present and future community property rights.
- The trial court found the support-limitation provisions invalid, severed them, enforced the property-release provisions, and dismissed the action; it also ruled the claim barred by laches.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1953 postnuptial agreement was an integrated agreement such that illegality of support provisions rendered the entire agreement void, or whether the property-release provisions were severable and enforceable.
2. Whether laches barred the widow’s community property claim asserted after the husband’s death.
3. Whether the case required remand for apportionment of the estate between separate and community property interests.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the 1953 postnuptial agreement was integrated; because its support provisions were illegal, the entire agreement (including the property release) was void and unenforceable.
- The court held laches did not bar the widow’s claim in the circumstances of an ongoing marriage.
- The court directed further proceedings to determine any community interest through appropriate apportionment of the estate.

## Legal Principles

- When spouses enter a single, integrated settlement covering both support and property rights, illegal support provisions invalidate the agreement as a whole; courts may not enforce property-release terms by severing the unlawful support limitations.
- Interpretation of an unambiguous marital agreement based on its text presents a question of law for appellate review.
- Laches generally does not run between spouses during marriage where one spouse may reasonably rely on the marital relationship and continuing support obligations.
- Determining community versus separate interests in an estate that grew during marriage may require careful allocation to distinguish increases attributable to separate capital from increases attributable to community labor or effort.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the entire postnuptial agreement because its unlawful support restrictions were inseparable from the property settlement, rejected laches as a bar to the widow’s claim, and remanded for apportionment to determine any community property share in the decedent’s estate.


Cord v. Neuhoff, 573 P.2d 1170 (Nev. 1978)