## Facts

- Christopher and Shelley Schlaefer married in 1994 after signing a premarital agreement stating each spouse’s earnings would remain separate property.
- The premarital agreement assigned to Shelley sole responsibility for her debts incurred before or during marriage, except for “joint obligations.”
- During the marriage, Shelley incurred a hospital medical debt; Christopher did not sign medical-admission paperwork or any payment agreement.
- In the divorce decree, the court found no community debts and classified the hospital obligation as Shelley’s separate debt.
- A collection agency, Financial Management Service, Inc. (FMS), sued Christopher after the divorce to collect the hospital debt.
- The trial court found the premarital agreement unconscionable, treated the medical debt as a community obligation, entered summary judgment for FMS, and awarded FMS attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Christopher appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by declaring the premarital agreement unconscionable and unenforceable when unconscionability was not raised and the statutory requirements for nonenforcement were not shown.
2. Whether the medical debt incurred during marriage was a community obligation, or instead Shelley’s separate debt under the premarital agreement and dissolution decree, defeating FMS’s claim against Christopher.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for FMS and reversed the attorneys’ fee award.
- The trial court erred by finding the premarital agreement unconscionable on its own initiative and without record support under the premarital agreement statute.
- The premarital agreement rebutted the presumption that the medical debt was a community obligation; the debt was Shelley’s separate obligation.
- Because Christopher was not liable on a community-debt theory, FMS could not obtain judgment against him on that basis.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment rulings are reviewed de novo, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-prevailing party.
- A premarital agreement is enforceable unless the party resisting enforcement proves statutory grounds for nonenforcement, including lack of voluntariness or statutory unconscionability with inadequate disclosure at execution.
- Debts incurred during marriage are presumed community obligations, but the presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
- A premarital agreement that expressly assigns responsibility for a spouse’s debts incurred during marriage to that spouse can provide clear and convincing evidence that a particular obligation is separate, especially when consistent with other record evidence (e.g., absence of the other spouse’s agreement to pay and a dissolution decree allocating the debt).
- When a creditor’s claim against a spouse depends on the community-debt presumption, the claim fails once the obligation is established as the other spouse’s separate debt.

## Conclusion

The court held that the premarital agreement was enforceable on this record and provided clear and convincing evidence rebutting the community-debt presumption; Shelley’s medical debt was her separate obligation, so the creditor could not collect it from Christopher, requiring reversal of the judgment and associated fee award.


Schlaefer v. Fin. Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 196 Ariz. 336, 996 P.2d 745 (Ct. App. 2000)