Mark B. Owen v. Tina M. Owen , 233 W. Va. 521 ( 2014 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
January 2014 Term
_______________ FILED
June 4, 2014
released at 3:00 p.m.
No. 13-0467 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
_______________ OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARK B. OWEN,
Respondent Below, Petitioner
v.
TINA M. OWEN,
Petitioner Below, Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Harrison County
The Honorable James A. Matish, Judge
Civil Action No. 11-D-543
AFFIRMED, IN PART; REVERSED, IN PART; AND REMANDED
WITH DIRECTIONS
____________________________________________________________
Submitted: March 25, 2014
Filed: June 4, 2014
Debra Tedeschi Varner, Esq. Larry W. Chafin, Esq.
Mark E. Gaydos, Esq. Debra V. Chafin, Esq.
Allison S. McClure, Esq. Law Offices of Debra V. Chafin
McNeer, Highland, McMunn Clarksburg, West Virginia
and Varner, L.C. Counsel for the Respondent
Clarksburg, West Virginia
Counsel for the Petitioner
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE KETCHUM dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court judge upon a
review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final order of a family court judge, we review the
findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and
the application of the law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. We review
the questions of law de novo.” Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004).
2. “One attorney may not represent, nor purport to counsel, both parties
to a prenuptial agreement.” Syl. pt. 4, Ware v. Ware, 224 W. Va. 599, 687 S.E.2d 382
(2009).
3. “For the presumption of validity to apply to a prenuptial agreement,
both parties to that agreement must be represented by independent counsel. Moreover,
where one party to a prenuptial agreement is represented by counsel while the other is
not, the burden of establishing the validity of that agreement is on the party seeking its
enforcement. To the extent that Gant v. Gant, 174 W.Va. 740, 329 S.E.2d 106 (1985),
and its progeny hold otherwise, they are overruled.” Syl. pt. 5, Ware v. Ware, 224 W.
Va. 599, 687 S.E.2d 382 (2009).
i
Per Curiam:
This appeal seeks the reversal of the order of the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, entered March 25, 2013, that affirmed the Family Court of Harrison County’s
ruling and order that invalidated a prenuptial agreement1 and further distributed the
parties’ assets. The petitioner raises two issues in this appeal. The first issue is whether
the family court improperly invalidated the parties’ prenuptial agreement. The second is
whether the family court properly distributed the parties’ marital estate, by giving
appropriate credit to the petitioner for his premarital worth and for the value of his
inheritance from his family. For the reasons cited herein, we affirm the portion of the
circuit court’s order that invalidated the prenuptial agreement, we reverse the portion of
1
W. Va. Code § 48-1-203 (2009) defines the phrase “antenuptial agreement” or
“prenuptial agreement” as follows:
“Antenuptial agreement” or “prenuptial agreement”
means an agreement between a man and woman before
marriage, but in contemplation and generally in consideration
of marriage, by which the property rights and interests of the
prospective husband and wife, or both of them, are
determined, or where property is secured to either or both of
them, to their separate estate, or to their children or other
persons. An antenuptial agreement may include provisions
that define the respective property rights of the parties during
the marriage, or upon the death of either or both of the
parties. The agreement may provide for the disposition of
marital property upon an annulment of the marriage or a
divorce or separation of the parties. A prenuptial agreement is
void if at the time it is made either of the parties is a minor.
See Ware v. Ware, 224 W. Va. 599, 687 S.E.2d 382 (2009).
1
the order that affirmed the family court’s distribution of marital assets and we remand
this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The petitioner, Mark B. Owen (“Husband”), and the respondent, Tina M.
Owen (“Wife”), were married to each other on December 12, 1981. Prior to this
marriage, the Husband and Wife had each been married before and both had custody, or
partial custody, of the children born of these earlier marriages. At the time of their
marriage the Husband was 38 years of age and the Wife was 23 years of age. Four days
before the wedding, the parties signed and executed a prenuptial agreement drafted by C.
David McMunn, an attorney who had previously represented the Husband in other
matters.2 At the time of the entry of the agreement, the wedding date had not been
scheduled. Lawyer McMunn served as the notary public when the prenuptial agreement
was signed by the parties. The Wife was not presented a copy of the proposed agreement
prior to signing it. The Husband, however, had the opportunity to and did make changes
to the agreement. The family court found that at the time of the execution of this
prenuptial agreement, Lawyer McMunn spoke with the Wife in general terms about these
2
Lawyer McMunn previously drafted a prenuptial agreement for the Husband
when the Husband was contemplating marrying another woman. The agreement drafted
for the Husband and Wife’s use was a modification of that previous prenuptial
agreement.
2
types of agreements but did not review the specific terms of the agreement with either
party. After the agreement was executed, the Wife contends that she did not receive a
copy of the executed prenuptial agreement until she filed her first petition for divorce in
2005.
The prenuptial agreement contained a provision that the Husband and Wife
would hold all real property they currently possessed free and clear of any claim of dower
or curtesy on the other’s part. The agreement also stated that the Husband and Wife’s
personal property holdings would be free and clear of the other’s claims. The prenuptial
agreement contained a waiver on both the Husband’s and Wife’s parts to waive the right
to request or receive spousal support. In the event children were born of the marriage, the
parties agreed to equally support the children and demand no more than one-half of the
support from the other parent. Consideration for this agreement was stated to be love and
affection.
The prenuptial agreement contained a stipulation that the Wife
acknowledged that the Husband’s net worth had been disclosed to her and was in excess
of $94,000. The Husband acknowledged that the Wife’s net worth had been disclosed to
her and was in excess of $7,000. Within this provision was a statement that both the
Husband and Wife had received the advice of counsel and that the agreement was being
entered into freely and with a full understanding of its provisions.
3
After the parties were married, they lived together and raised their children
from previous marriages, as well as the two children born of their marriage to each other.
In 2005, the Wife filed a petition seeking divorce; however, the parties reconciled and
continued their marriage. On August 18, 2011, the Wife filed another petition for
divorce. The Husband and Wife continued to reside in the same home until November of
2011. In his answer to the divorce complaint, the Husband requested enforcement of this
prenuptial agreement. It is the contention of the Wife that at the time of the execution of
this agreement, she did not have knowledge of the extent of the Husband’s assets.
In the course of the divorce proceedings, the family court held separate
hearings on the validity of the prenuptial agreement. At the conclusion of these hearings,
the family court entered an order on January 9, 2012, that invalidated the prenuptial
agreement, on the grounds that the Wife did not enter into the agreement with full
knowledge of the contents of the agreement and the legal effect of that agreement. The
family court found that the prenuptial agreement was executed voluntarily and under
circumstances free from fraud, duress or misrepresentation. The family court found that
it was undisputed that the Wife did not have the advice of independent counsel at the time
she signed the agreement, despite the express language in the agreement stating
otherwise. It was contested and disputed whether Lawyer McMunn ever conveyed to the
Wife that he could represent her interests. The family court found that prior to the
4
execution of the prenuptial agreement, the Husband told the Wife that Lawyer McMunn
represented both of their interests. However, the family court found that while “it is
arguable that the [Wife] has the opportunity to consult with independent counsel prior to
the signing of the agreement, the Court finds [Wife] to be truthful in her claims that
respondent assured her that Mr. McMunn represented both of their interests.”
The family court order included a section entitled “Additional
observations.” In this section, the family court stated that it did not base the invalidation
of the prenuptial agreement on unconscionability, but surmised that if asked to, it would
likely find the agreement to be unconscionable because it “subverts all of the West
Virginia statutory and judicial concepts of equitable distribution” by excluding items
from marital property, by not addressing debts and by eliminating the parties’ rights to
make claims against the other’s estate. The family court also questioned the provisions
regarding the payment of child support, noting that West Virginia law assesses child
support proportionately to each parent depending upon income, so that the children will
enjoy the standard of living that each parent has. The family court also noted that the
Husband was a savvy business person who was in the habit of acquiring assets, had a
higher income potential and had more to gain from excluding all future acquisitions from
the marital estate. The family court noted that “this one-sidedness coupled with the
provisions of the Agreement which are contradictory to public policy could potentially
invalidate the agreement based upon unconscionability.”
5
On January 30, 2012, the Husband sought a stay of the family court’s order.
The family court declined to issue the stay. On February 6, 2012, the Husband filed an
appeal of the order that found the prenuptial agreement unenforceable, or, in the
alternative, sought a writ of prohibition against the family court, claiming that the family
court committed error when it invalidated the prenuptial agreement. On February 9,
2012, the circuit court denied the request for a stay of the family court order, denied the
appeal because the order was not a final order subject to appeal, and instructed the
Husband to file the petition for a writ of prohibition as a separate civil action. The
Husband filed this separate action on March 6, 2012.3
After the entry of the order invalidating the prenuptial agreement, the
family court entered a separate order granting the parties a divorce and distributing the
marital property. The family court found that the home in which the parties resided,
which was titled solely in the Husband’s name, had a value of $530,000 and that this
property was part of the marital estate, because the prenuptial agreement had been
invalidated. The family court also found that $15,000 in proceeds from the sale of a
3
The circuit court dismissed the petition for writ of prohibition on August 14,
2012, finding that the Husband had not requested a hearing and that the family court had
entered a final divorce decree that could still be appealed.
6
jointly-held condominium in Canaan Valley had been applied to the purchase price of the
marital home.
The family court further found that the Husband had received an
inheritance in the form of stocks, cash and the proceeds from the sale of his family’s
home that totaled $142,912. The Husband used some of this money to pay off the
mortgage on the marital home. The Husband argued that the payment of the mortgage
indebtedness on the marital home was made with his sole and separate property: the
proceeds from his inheritance. The family court found that the Husband had failed to
show that the reduction of the mortgage on the marital residence was made with funds
that were clearly his separate property.
The family court ultimately divided the parties’ marital estate equally and
required the Husband to pay the Wife the sum of $417,273 to accomplish this division.4
In addition, the family court awarded attorney fees and costs to the Wife, including
$3,000 for the cost of defending the writ of prohibition sought by the Husband after the
prenuptial agreement was deemed unenforceable.
4
Additional relief was granted in the family court’s final order, including an
award of permanent spousal support to the petitioner and distribution of other property.
7
The Husband and Wife each pursued appeals of the family court’s orders to
the circuit court. The Husband argued that the prenuptial agreement was valid, and that
the family court erred in not giving him credit for using a portion of his $142,000
inheritance to pay off the marital home. The Husband also argued that the family court
erred by not giving him credit for his pre-marital worth of $94,000, as reflected in the
prenuptial agreement.5 The Wife’s assertions of error before the circuit court included
the attribution of income in the amount of $1,500 per month and the failure to include the
debt on her automobile in valuing the marital property. Both parties appealed the award
of attorney fees. The Husband contested the award of $15,000 in attorney fees to the
Wife for an appeal, and the award of $3,000 in fees associated with defending the
Husband’s petition for writ of prohibition. The Wife argued that the family court abused
its discretion by reducing the amount of non-attorney fees and costs that were submitted
for reimbursement.
5
Additional grounds for error asserted in the circuit court appeal, but not in the
present appeal, include the inclusion of four ounces of gold that was the Husband’s sole
property into the marital estate; the failure of the family court to include the value of the
liquidated IRA in the Wife’s name into the marital estate; failure of the family court to
give the Husband credit for a $22,000 loan to the Wife; failure to give the Husband credit
for payments made on the marital home between the date of separation and the entry of
the final decree (commonly referred to as Conrad credits); and the award of spousal
support.
8
The circuit court affirmed the majority of the order, reversing only that
portion of the order that awarded attorney fees to the Wife for defending the writ of
prohibition filed by the Husband. The circuit court found that the family court did not
have jurisdiction to award attorney fees for a matter in circuit court and reversed the
family court order. Regarding the credit for the value of his separate estate, the circuit
found that the family court did not err by failing to reduce the value marital estate by
$94,000, which was the Husband’s premarital worth. The circuit court affirmed the
family court’s ruling that the agreement was unenforceable. The circuit court agreed that
the Wife did not consult with independent legal counsel prior to signing the agreement.
From this order the Husband pursues this appeal.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court’s well-established standard of review was articulated in the sole
syllabus point in Carr v. Hancock, 216 W. Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004):
In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court
judge upon a review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final
order of a family court judge, we review the findings of fact
made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous
standard, and the application of the law to the facts under an
abuse of discretion standard. We review the questions of law
de novo.
III.
9
ANALYSIS
This appeal raises two issues: Whether the prenuptial agreement was
properly deemed to be unenforceable and whether the Husband should have received
credit for his premarital worth and for the use of his separate property to reduce the
indebtedness on the marital home.
A. Prenuptial agreement
Both the family court and circuit court ruled that the prenuptial agreement
was unenforceable because although the agreement was executed voluntarily and without
fraud, duress or misrepresentation, the Wife did not have knowledge of its contents and
legal effect at the time it was signed.
In 1985, we addressed the validity of prenuptial agreements. We held that
prenuptial agreements are presumed to be valid. In syllabus point 1 of Gant v. Gant, 174
W. Va. 740, 329 S.E.2d 106 (1985), we held that
[p]renuptial agreements that establish property
settlements and support obligations at the time of divorce are
presumptively valid in West Virginia; the burden of proving
the invalidity of such an agreement is upon the person who
would have the agreement held invalid.
We also addressed what is required for a prenuptial agreement to be held valid.
The validity of a prenuptial agreement is dependent
upon its valid procurement, which requires its having been
10
executed voluntarily, with knowledge of its content and legal
effect, under circumstances free of fraud, duress, or
misrepresentation; however, although advice of independent
counsel at the time parties enter into a prenuptial agreement
helps demonstrate that there has been no fraud, duress or
misrepresentation, and that the agreement was entered into
knowledgeably and voluntarily, such independent advice of
counsel is not a prerequisite to enforceability when the terms
of the agreement are understandable to a reasonably
intelligent adult and both parties have had the opportunity to
consult with independent counsel.
Syl. pt. 2, Gant, 174 W.Va. 740, 329 S.E.2d 106.
In 2009, we again examined the role of counsel in the preparation and
execution of these agreements. We held that “[o]ne attorney may not represent, nor
purport to counsel, both parties to a prenuptial agreement.” Syl. pt. 4, Ware v. Ware, 224
W. Va. 599, 687 S.E.2d 382 (2009).
For the presumption of validity to apply to a prenuptial
agreement, both parties to that agreement must be represented
by independent counsel. Moreover, where one party to a
prenuptial agreement is represented by counsel while the
other is not, the burden of establishing the validity of that
agreement is on the party seeking its enforcement. To the
extent that Gant v. Gant, 174 W.Va. 740, 329 S.E.2d 106
(1985), and its progeny hold otherwise, they are overruled.
Syl. pt. 5, Ware v. Ware, 224 W. Va. 599, 687 S.E.2d 382 (2009).
The Husband argues that basic contract principles require a reversal of the
lower courts’ decisions. He submits that because the Wife, whom he deemed a
“reasonably-intelligent adult,” was capable of understanding what she was signing. He
11
argues that the Wife should have read what she was signing and that by signing the
prenuptial agreement, she is deemed to have read it, understood it and is therefore bound
by its terms. The Wife argues that our holdings in Gant and Ware support the lower
courts’ decisions, and that without the opportunity for independent legal counsel, the
prenuptial agreement cannot be enforced.
Gant and Ware each acknowledge the role of independent and separate
legal counsel for all signatories to a prenuptial agreement. In Gant we held that the
independent advice of an attorney is not a prerequisite to enforcing the agreement, so
long as the terms of the agreement are understandable to a reasonably intelligent adult
and both parties have had the chance to speak and consult with independent counsel. Syl.
pt. 2, Gant. In Ware, we modified that holding to reflect that for the agreement to be
presumptively valid, both parties to a prenuptial agreement must be represented by
independent counsel. We further held where one party to the agreement is not
represented by counsel, that the burden of establishing the validity of a prenuptial
agreement is on the party who was represented by counsel. Syl. pt. 5, Ware.
The family court noted and recognized as we do that the events surrounding
the execution of the subject prenuptial agreement took place 30 years prior to the ruling
on its enforceability. The memories of the parties could be clouded, so the family court
relied upon the document itself as the most reliable evidence as it relates to the execution
12
of the agreement. Within the prenuptial agreement itself is a statement that the Wife “has
had the advice of counsel.” It was disputed whether the Husband represented to the Wife
that his attorney could represented them both. The attorney who prepared the prenuptial
agreement at the request of the Husband testified that he discussed with the Wife that he
could not represent her. Despite this knowledge, and this statement by counsel, the
executed agreement itself still contained the statement that the Wife had been assisted by
an attorney.
Regardless of these inconsistencies, it is undisputed that the Wife did not
have independent legal counsel. Under Ware, the burden shifts to the husband to show
the agreement was valid. While the lower courts found that the agreement was entered
into voluntarily, without evidence of fraud, duress or misrepresentations, the lower courts
also found that the Wife did not sign the agreement with knowledge of its contents and
legal effect. There was no specific explanation of the rights she was waiving, especially
those associated with property acquired during the course of the marriage that would be
deemed marital property, subject to equitable distribution. Lawyer McMunn’s testimony
that he did not go over the provisions of the agreement in detail with the Wife, but that he
discussed only the general concepts of a prenuptial agreement, was unrebutted by the
parties. Applying the principles in Gant and Ware to the case at bar, we find that the
family court and circuit court properly deemed this prenuptial agreement unenforceable.
The burden of persuasion below rested with the Husband, the party who was seeking to
13
establish the validity of the contract. He failed to meet this burden. We see no abuse of
discretion on the part of the lower courts in rendering this prenuptial agreement
unenforceable.
B. Equitable distribution
Having affirmed the decision to render the prenuptial agreement
unenforceable, we turn to the question of whether the family court properly distributed
the marital estate. The Husband argues that the value of his premarital worth, a fact
established within the prenuptial agreement, should have been deducted from the marital
estate. In addition, the Husband argues that he should be entitled to a credit for the
amount of his inheritance that was utilized to pay off the indebtedness against the marital
home.
W. Va. Code § 48-1-237(1)–(2) (2001) defines separate property as (1)
property acquired by a person before a marriage; and (2) property acquired by a person
during marriage in exchange for separate property which was acquired before the
marriage. The family court’s order did not specifically address the premarital worth of
either party. By failing to do so, the family court did not give credit, where due, for what
was clearly the separate property of the Husband and the Wife. We find this to be
reversible error and remand this matter for determination of both the Husband and Wife’s
pre-marital worth.
14
Regarding the Husband’s inheritance, W. Va. Code § 48-1-237(4) (2001)
includes “property acquired by a party during marriage by gift, bequest, devise, descent
or distribution” as separate property. While acknowledging the inheritance was received
and was separate property, the lower courts did not credit the amount of the inheritance
because the Husband failed to provide information about the payoff amount of the
mortgage and whether the funds had been commingled. Neither did the lower courts
consider whether payment of the marital home mortgage converted the uncommingled
inheritance proceeds into marital property. This, too, was error, and requires us to
remand this matter for such determinations.
On remand, the family court is directed to determine whether the Husband
commingled the proceeds of his inheritance. The court is further directed to determine
what amount of money was utilized from the Husband’s uncommingled inheritance to
reduce the mortgage indebtedness. Further, the court is directed to give both parties
credit for their premarital worth, facts to be determined by the court.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm that portion of the circuit court’s order
that ruled that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable. We reverse the portion of the
15
order that affirmed the family court’s failure to give the Husband credit against the
marital estate for the payment of marital indebtedness with the proceeds of his
uncommingled inheritance, and remand with directions to determine what if any portion
of such funds may have constituted marital property. We also reverse the portion of the
order that affirmed the family court’s failure to give the parties credit for their premarital
worth. We remand this case for further proceedings related to the equitable distribution
of the parties’ marital estate, with appropriate credit being given for the reduction of the
indebtedness on the marital home that was attributable to the inheritance and for the
parties’ premarital net worth.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded, with directions.
16