Yegorova v. Dubinin

• Decision Date: 27 June 2022
• Docket Number: 82400-7-I
• Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of NATALYA YEGOROVA, Appellant, v. GEORGIY DUBININ, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Marriage of NATALYA YEGOROVA, Appellant,
v.
GEORGIY DUBININ, Respondent.

No. 82400-7-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

June 27, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

COBURN, J.

Natalya Yegorova appeals the trial court's dissolution order related to the validity of two Real Property Agreements (RPAs) and a quit claim deed signed by her then husband Georgiy Dubinin that, if enforced, would entitle her to three-quarters equity in the family house, plus $50,000, and full title to the couple's condo. We hold that the RPAs did not provide a fair and reasonable provision to Dubinin and that he signed the RPAs and quit claim deed under circumstances which were not procedurally fair. The trial court did not err in refusing to enforce those agreements. We also agree with the trial court that Yegorova did not overcome the presumption that the money used to purchase and remodel the properties was community property. Accordingly, we affirm and award Dubinin attorney fees.

Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.

1

FACTS

Georgiy Dubinin and Natalya Yegorova started dating and living together in 2010. Yegorova started her beauty salon business in 2006 by renting a chair from another company, but later opened her own business, Indigo Beauty Salon, in 2011. The couple married on August 19, 2012. This was Yegorova's third marriage and Dubinin's first marriage.

Yegorova regularly brought home cash from her salon. Dubinin worked as a user-experience designer. He testified that he would deposit his entire paycheck into their joint account, but Yegorova would only deposit some of her earnings into the account and accumulate savings with the rest. The couple lived off the money in the joint account but used the savings when needed to make a purchase. According to Dubinin, because Yegorova was a workaholic, the funds from her work would accumulate fairly quickly. Yegorova admittedly did not report all her cash earnings on the couple's federal income tax reports.

Shortly after their marriage, the couple purchased a house in Bellevue. The down payment and escrow due totaled $18,987.98. No one disputes that Dubinin's parents contributed $2,000 as a gift. Yegorova and Dubinin dispute the source of the remaining balance. Yegorova claims that she paid the balance with

2

her premarital earnings and possibly cash gifted to her from her mother.^[1] Dubinin testified that the rest of the balance came from a combination of his and Yegorova's savings. Dubinin submitted evidence that Yegorova provided him with three checks totaling $10,000 and testified that Yegorova did not provide any additional cash.^[2] Dubinin testified that the rest of the money came from a wire payment from his bank account, which itself contained $14,556 prior to the additional deposits of money.

Though the title and mortgage to the Bellevue house was secured in Dubinin's name, he transferred ownership of the home to the marital community. Soon after the couple closed on the house, Yegorova asked Dubinin to sign the first Real Property Agreement (RPA1). Unbeknownst to Dubinin, months prior to the purchase of the home, Yegorova consulted with a real estate attorney to draft RPA1.^[3] The agreement stated in part:

3

WHEREAS, in consideration of the purchase of the subject property, and an anticipated contribution by [Yegorova] of approximately $25,000.00 toward the down payment and; WHEREAS, in consideration of the purchase of the subject property, and an anticipated contribution by [Dubinin] of the balance of the down payment, together with closing costs and;

WHEREAS, [Yegorova] has agreed to contribute an additional sum in the approximate amount of $25,000.00 toward jointly agreed household improvements after closing;

IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Upon closing of the subject property, [Dubinin] shall promptly quit claim one-half of his interest in the same to [Yegorova].

It is further agreed that upon legal separation or divorce of the parties, [Yegorova] shall be entitled to receive a payment of one half of the parties' then current equity in the real property as described hereinabove, along with her initial $50,000.00 contributions as referred to above.

Dubinin was "caught off guard" by RPA1. He told Yegorova he did not understand where the "random numbers" in the agreement came from, but she refused to answer his questions and pressed him to immediately sign the document, which he did an "hour[] [m]aybe two" hours later in front of a notary. During their marriage, the house underwent multiple remodeling projects.

In June 2014, the couple purchased a second property, a Bellevue condo. The purpose for the purchase was disputed at trial. Dubinin testified that the condo was purchased primarily as an investment property and also as a

4

temporary place for Yegorova's mother, then living in Ukraine,^[4] to stay for part of the year. Yegorova testified that the condo was purchased exclusively for her mother who would come to stay in Washington State after the couple had children.

The condo was purchased in both Dubinin and Yegorova's names. The source of the funds for the purchase of the condo also was disputed at trial. Dubinin testified that the money for the condo down payment came from joint funds. As some of the couple's money for the condo was in the form of cash, Dubinin asked his parents to transfer the funds for the down payment masked as a "gift" and the couple would repay them with cash.^[5] Yegorova testified that the down payment for the condo came from $30,000 cash given to her by her mother. Yegorova said she and Dubinin asked his parents to write the check for the down payment, then Yegorova gave cash to Dubinin to pay back his parents.

Two months after the couple closed on the condo, Yegorova presented another Real Property Agreement (RPA2) relating to the condo for Dubinin to sign. The agreement stated in part:

WHEREAS, in consideration of the purchase of the subject property, and an anticipated contribution by [Yegorova] of approximately $50,000.00 toward the down payment and existing

5

and future remodeling costs:

IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Upon the legal separation or divorce of the parties, [Yegorova] shall receive and own all of the parties' interests in the property described above, and [Dubinin] shall immediately quit claim any and all of his interest in said property to [Yegorova].

Unbeknownst to Dubinin, Yegorova hired the same attorney who prepared RPA1 to prepare RPA2.

Dubinin testified that upon asking him to sign RPA2 Yegorova "flipped her narrative" from the condo being a "joint venture" and investment property to claiming the condo was intended for her mother. Dubinin testified that he merely "scanned" the document as Yegorova refused to answer his questions and continued to "increas[e] the pressure" for him to sign it by following him around and verbally harassing him. Similar to when he signed RPA1, Dubinin had no independent recollection of signing in front of a notary but remembered that he signed it within an hour or two later after Yegorova first presented it.

In the summer of 2015 the couple remodeled the condo. The same summer, Yegorova's mother, obtained her lawful permanent residency and moved into the condo. In October 2015, the couple had their only child.

In November 2018, Dubinin started receiving counseling from a psychotherapist to address difficulties in his relationship with Yegorova. Yegorova knew Dubinin was seeing a psychotherapist because it was one of her

6

clients who recommended the specific psychotherapist to Yegorova for Dubinin.

The psychotherapist testified at trial that Dubinin suffered from adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, meaning he had some depression and some anxiety. The psychotherapist said Dubinin lived in fear of his wife's criticism and that he was scared of her reactions. According to the psychotherapist, Dubinin's response to avoid arguing with his wife was not simply a preference to avoid an argument. The psychotherapist testified, "I don't think emotionally he was able to handle it very well. I think it had a very strong effect on him emotionally where maybe another person it wouldn't affect them so deeply."

In February 2019, Yegorova presented Dubinin with a third real property agreement, a quit claim deed for the condo. The agreement stated in part: "Georgiy Dubinin for and in consideration of [l]ove...