## Facts

- Carla M. DewBerry and Emanuel E. George, Jr. began discussing marriage in California in 1981.
- George proposed “conditions of marriage,” including that each spouse’s income and property would be treated as separate, each would maintain a home to return to if the marriage failed, and DewBerry would remain employed; DewBerry agreed.
- The parties married in 1986 and separated in 2000.
- Throughout the marriage, they maintained separate bank accounts for earnings and personal expenses and generally kept investments and retirement accounts separate.
- In 1990, they opened a joint checking account limited to agreed household expenses, funded by specified contributions; they used reimbursements to keep separate funds separate.
- DewBerry acquired multiple houses during the relationship, titled in her name and maintained with her funds; the family lived in one of her separately titled homes while George paid a set monthly amount toward living expenses.
- DewBerry’s income later increased substantially (eventually exceeding $1 million annually); George’s employment varied, including later work providing steady income and benefits.
- In dissolution proceedings, DewBerry testified an oral prenuptial separate-property agreement existed and had been followed; George denied any binding agreement.
- The superior court found an oral prenuptial agreement existed, was fully performed during the marriage, characterized most property as separate, divided property largely by awarding each spouse the property acquired, and entered a child-support order.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral premarital agreement to treat earnings and property acquired during marriage as separate is enforceable despite the statute of frauds.
2. Whether the trial court erred by characterizing property acquired during marriage as separate based on the agreement and the parties’ conduct.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the property distribution and child-support order.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution decree.
- The court held the oral prenuptial separate-property agreement was enforceable because it was proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was fully performed during the marriage, removing the statute-of-frauds bar.
- The court upheld the characterization of most marital-period acquisitions as separate property consistent with the agreement and the parties’ long-standing financial practices.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in awarding each spouse their separate property and in setting child support.

## Legal Principles

- An oral premarital agreement affecting property rights may be enforced when its existence and terms are established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and the agreement has been fully performed.
- Full performance can take an agreement outside the statute of frauds in dissolution-related property disputes.
- In Washington dissolution proceedings, trial courts have broad discretion to characterize and distribute property and to set child support; appellate review is for manifest abuse of discretion.
- A long, consistent course of treating finances and acquisitions as separate may corroborate an asserted separate-property agreement and support separate characterization at dissolution.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed enforcement of an oral prenuptial agreement to keep earnings and acquisitions separate where the parties consistently followed the arrangement over many years, and it upheld the resulting property characterization, distribution, and child-support determinations as within the trial court’s discretion.


In re Marriage of DewBerry, 115 Wash. App. 351, 62 P.3d 525 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)