D'Aston v. D'Aston

• Decision Date: 14 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 890050-CA,890050-CA
• Citation: 808 P.2d 111
• Parties: Bruno D'ASTON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dorothy D'ASTON, et al., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 111

808 P.2d 111

Bruno D'ASTON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dorothy D'ASTON, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 890050-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

June 14, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1990.

Brian C. Harrison (argued), Harris, Carter & Harrison, Provo, for defendants and appellants.

S. Rex Lewis (argued), Leslie W. Slaugh, Howard, Lewis & Peterson, Provo, for plaintiff and appellee.

OPINION

Before BILLINGS, GARFF and ORME, JJ.

BILLINGS, Judge:

Appellant, Dorothy D'Aston ("Wife"), appeals from a divorce decree entered by the district court, principally claiming the court erred in failing to distribute the parties' property pursuant to a postnuptial agreement.

On appeal, Bruno D'Aston ("Husband") responded that since Wife was in contempt of the trial court and was avoiding court process, this court should not consider her appeal on the merits. We agreed with Husband and ordered Wife to submit herself to the process of the trial court within 30 days or we would dismiss her appeal. See D'Aston v. D'Aston, 790 P.2d 590 (Utah Ct.App.1990). Wife gave us notice of her compliance with our order on May 4, 1990, and therefore we address the merits of her appeal in this opinion.

We agree with Wife's contention that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties' property pursuant to their postnuptial agreement and therefore reverse and remand.

Husband and Wife divorced on December 15, 1988, after a 35-year marriage. In 1973, Husband asked Wife to enter into a written property agreement, which had been prepared by his attorney. The agreement was executed by both parties in 1973, then notarized and recorded in the State of California in 1975.

Under the 1973 agreement, Wife received two parcels of real estate and cash. Husband received all real property outside the United States; personal property in his possession, which included $1 million in coins and a collection of antique cars; and all domestic and foreign patents and patent rights. The agreement also provided that all property acquired by either party in his/her own name would be the separate property of that person. Finally, the agreement provided that the parties would execute documents to implement the agreement, and that each had the advice of counsel, had read the agreement, and had not signed the agreement under duress, fraud or undue influence. Shortly after the agreement was signed, the parties conveyed the property as provided in the agreement.

On May 2, 1986, Husband filed for divorce. Husband claimed that much of the tangible personal property given to him under the 1973 agreement had been stolen on April 30, 1986, the day Wife had asked him to leave their home. On July 31, 1986, Husband's California attorney, who had drafted the 1973 agreement, sent a letter to Wife's Utah attorney which stated the 1973 agreement was in full force and effect.

Both parties at trial acknowledged they executed the 1973 agreement voluntarily and did not execute it under duress, fraud or undue influence. However, at trial, Husband claimed the 1973 agreement should not control the disposition of the parties' property in this divorce action because the agreement was entered into only to protect the couple's assets from possible creditors in pending litigation, not to distribute property in the event of divorce. Wife at trial claimed she had no knowledge of the alleged pending litigation and assumed the 1973 agreement was to control for all purposes, including the possibility of divorce.

The trial court held the 1973 agreement was not intended to control in the event of divorce, and thus, equitably divided all of the parties' property and awarded no alimony to either party. Wife appeals, claiming that (1) the trial court erred in dividing the parties' separate property in this divorce action contrary to the terms of the 1973 agreement, (2) the trial court erred in denying Wife alimony, and (3) the conduct of the trial judge constituted judicial bias.

VALIDITY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENTS

In Utah, prenuptial agreements are enforceable as long as there is no fraud, coercion or material nondisclosure. ¹ Utah's courts have not yet considered the enforceability of postnuptial agreements not in contemplation of divorce. However, other jurisdictions review postnuptial property agreements under the same standards as those applied to prenuptial agreements. ²

We agree with the majority of our neighboring jurisdictions and thus hold that a postnuptial agreement is enforceable in Utah absent fraud, coercion, or material nondisclosure. ³

Neither Husband nor Wife assert that the 1973 property agreement was entered into as a result of fraud or coercion nor do they contend that there was material nondisclosure of the parties' assets. Thus, this postnuptial agreement should be enforced pursuant to its terms.

Our conclusion, however, does not resolve this controversy as Husband and Wife disagree as to the meaning and scope of the 1973 postnuptial property agreement. Wife contends the agreement by its unambiguous terms applies in the event of divorce. Husband argues that it was executed merely to protect the parties' property from creditors and was not intended to control a distribution of the parties' property in the event of divorce. Thus, we must determine what the parties intended when they entered into this 1973 agreement.

Utah courts have applied general contract principles when interpreting prenuptial agreements. See Berman v. Berman, 749 P.2d 1271, 1273 (Utah Ct.App.1988) (A prenuptial agreement should be treated like any other contract. "In interpreting contracts, the principal concern is to determine what the parties intended by what they said."). This approach is consistent with other jurisdictions' treatment of postnuptial agreements. ⁴

Thus, in order to resolve Husband and Wife's disagreement as to the scope and meaning of this postnuptial agreement, we apply normal rules of contract construction. The core principle is that in construing this contract, we first look to the four corners of the agreement to determine the parties' intentions. See Neilson v. Neilson, 780 P.2d 1264, 1267 (Utah Ct.App.1989); see also Ron Case Roofing & Asphalt Paving Co. v. Blomquist, 773 P.2d 1382, 1385 (Utah 1989); LDS Hosp. v. Capitol Life Ins. Co., 765 P.2d 857, 858 (Utah 1988); Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988).

The relevant provisions of the 1973 agreement denoting its scope and application state, with our emphasis:

1. The husband does transfer, bargain, convey and quitclaim to the wife all of his right, title and interest, if any there be, in and to the following:

(a) The real property at 14211 Skyline Drive, Hacienda Heights, California and in and to all buildings, appurtenances and fixtures thereon.

(b) The real property at 230 South Ninth Avenue, City of Industry, California, including all buildings, appurtenances and fixtures thereon, and any and all oil and mineral rights thereto.

(c) Any and all cash in bank accounts located in the State of California.

2. The wife transfers, bargains, conveys and quitclaims to the husband all of her right, title and interest in and to real property located outside of the United States of America, and in and to all personal property in the possession of the husband, or subject to his control in the United States, Europe or elsewhere in the world, and in and to all patents or patent rights under the laws of the United States, United Kingdom or any commonwealth thereof, Switzerland, Japan or other countries. The provisions of this paragraph apply to all property described herein, whether presently owned or in existence or to be acquired or created in the future.

3. Hereafter, and until this agreement is modified in writing attached hereto, all property, real, personal and mixed, acquired by either party in his or her sole name, from whatever source derived and wherever situated, shall be the sole and separate property of such person, notwithstanding any law, statute or court decision giving presumptive effect to the status of marriage; and such property shall be free of all claims, demand or liens of the other, direct or indirect, and however derived.

This postnuptial agreement provides that Husband and Wife's property will be divided and the division will control for all purposes. The agreement was entered into in a community property state and the contractual language unambiguously and specifically refers to rebutting the presumption that all property acquired during the marriage is community property.

The trial court did not expressly conclude that the 1973 property agreement was ambiguous, but nevertheless proceeded to take extrinsic evidence ⁵ as to the parties' intentions and, based upon this controverted extrinsic evidence, concluded that the parties did not intend the 1973 agreement to apply in the event of divorce.

The threshold determination of whether a writing is ambiguous is a question of law, Buehner Block Co., 752 P.2d at 895; Faulkner v. Farnsworth, 665 P.2d 1292, 1293 (Utah 1983); Whitehouse v. Whitehouse, 790 P.2d 57, 60-61 (Ct.App.1990), and thus we review a trial court's determination under a correction-of-error standard, according no particular deference to the trial court. Id.; see also Seashores Inc. v. Hancey, 738 P.2d 645, 647 (Utah Ct.App.1987).

We find this postnuptial agreement unambiguously provides that it will apply to a disposition of the parties' property in the event of divorce. ⁶ Thus, we reverse the trial court's contrary ruling which was based upon extrinsic evidence as to what Husband and Wife intended by their 1973 agreement.

In summary, we reverse the trial court's property distribution and remand for enforcement of the 1973 postnuptial property agreement and then the division of the remaining property, if any, not...