In re the Marriage of Bernard

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the parties’ prenuptial agreement, as amended, was substantively and procedurally unfair and therefore unenforceable. The court affirmed the lower courts’ invalidation of the agreement and upheld the award of attorney fees and costs to Gloria Bernard.

Holdings

1. Washington applies a two-prong analysis to determine the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement: the court first considers substantive fairness, and if the agreement is substantively unfair, it considers procedural fairness.
2. The prenuptial agreement, as amended, was substantively unfair because it made provisions for Gloria Bernard disproportionate to the parties' respective means, restricted her ability to accumulate separate property, and precluded claims to Thomas Bernard's property.
3. The prenuptial agreement, as amended, was procedurally unfair because Gloria did not enter it voluntarily and intelligently after adequate independent advice and full knowledge of its legal consequences.
4. The awards of attorney fees and costs to Gloria Bernard at trial and on appeal were affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prenuptial agreement, as amended, was substantively unfair.
2. Whether the prenuptial agreement, as amended, was procedurally unfair because it was not entered into voluntarily and intelligently after adequate independent advice and full knowledge of legal consequences.
3. Whether the later side letter and amendment cured the original agreement's substantive or procedural defects.
4. Whether the trial court's awards of attorney fees and costs, including advance fees on appeal, should be affirmed.

Disposition

affirmed