## Facts

- Fabian and Frances Schweitzer married in 1973; Fabian entered the marriage with substantial separate assets.
- During the marriage, Fabian sold his separate assets and deposited proceeds into accounts commingled with community funds; the spouses maintained separate accounts used to pay community expenses.
- In 1981, shortly before Fabian left on an international trip, the spouses signed a store-bought, standard-form community property agreement without consulting counsel.
- The agreement stated it was made under RCW 26.16.120; it included (1) a clause converting all separate property to community property and (2) a survivorship clause vesting community property in the surviving spouse upon death.
- The signatures were notarized; witness signature lines were left blank.
- In 1992, Frances filed for dissolution and sought to enforce the agreement to treat Fabian’s property as community.
- Fabian contended the document was only an estate-planning device effective upon death and testified he did not remember reading it; Frances acknowledged a death-planning purpose but asserted both intended immediate conversion.
- The trial court relied on extrinsic evidence and refused to enforce the agreement as a present transmutation; the Court of Appeals reversed and enforced it.
- On review, the parties also briefed whether mutual mistake could invalidate the transmutation clause; the case also involved whether community funds used for an adult stepchild’s college expenses were an unauthorized gift.

## Issues

1. Whether an unambiguous community property agreement converting separate property to community property is enforceable in dissolution when extrinsic evidence suggests the parties signed it primarily for estate-planning purposes.
2. Whether such an agreement may be rescinded or reformed for mutual mistake of law regarding its legal effect, and what proof is required.
3. Whether paying an adult stepchild’s college expenses from community funds constitutes an improper gift of community property lacking spousal consent.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed enforcement of the community property agreement.
- The court held the trial court erred by using extrinsic evidence to contradict the agreement’s clear transmutation language.
- The court recognized mutual mistake of law can support rescission or reformation of a community property agreement in appropriate cases, but held mutual mistake was not established on this record.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that community payment of an adult stepchild’s college expenses is an unauthorized gift, treating such payments as potentially permissible community expenditures depending on context.

## Legal Principles

- A community property agreement with clear, unambiguous language converting separate property to community property is construed and enforced according to its terms in dissolution proceedings.
- Extrinsic evidence may aid interpretation but cannot be used to contradict unambiguous written terms by substituting subjective, after-the-fact intent testimony.
- Mutual mistake (including of law) may justify rescission or reformation only if the party seeking avoidance proves both spouses shared the same mistaken, material assumption about the agreement’s legal effect.
- A spouse’s failure to read or later dissatisfaction with consequences does not, by itself, prove mutual mistake.
- Community expenditures benefiting an adult stepchild (such as education costs) are not automatically treated as invalid gifts; characterization depends on whether they function as ordinary family expenses and the circumstances of marital decision-making.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a plainly worded community property agreement despite evidence it was signed for estate-planning reasons, limited the use of extrinsic intent evidence to contradict clear terms, required strict proof for mutual mistake avoidance, and treated adult stepchild education payments as potentially proper community expenditures rather than per se unauthorized gifts.


In re Marriage of Schweitzer, 132 Wash. 2d 318, 937 P.2d 1062 (Wash. 1997)