David Rowe v. Lonnie Rosenwald
74659-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 22, 2017Background
- Rowe and Rosenwald cohabited from 2009, negotiated a written property agreement allocating all assets and debts as each party's separate property, and created shared expense arrangements; Rosenwald drafted and Rowe had independent counsel review the agreement.
- The final agreement (signed by Rosenwald Oct 22, 2009; by Rowe Nov 21, 2009) included move-out/moving payments on termination ($15,000 if within 5 years; $30,000 if later), a joint-counseling requirement before ending the relationship, and an attorney-fees provision.
- The couple held a celebratory ceremony in 2011 they called a wedding but never obtained a marriage license; they separated in June 2013 and Rowe moved out.
- Rowe sued (petition for legal separation) seeking property distribution, spousal maintenance, and fees; Rosenwald moved for summary judgment enforcing the agreement; Rowe sought declaratory relief that the agreement was invalid and that they were married.
- The trial court granted Rosenwald summary judgment, struck the trial date, and awarded her attorney fees under the agreement; Rowe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rowe) | Defendant's Argument (Rosenwald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the property agreement | Agreement procedurally unfair: lack of negotiation on primary terms, economic/psychological duress, and possible substantive unconscionability | Agreement procedurally fair: independent counsel, full disclosure, voluntary execution, months of negotiation | Agreement enforceable — procedurally fair; no factual dispute defeats summary judgment |
| Existence of legal marriage | Ceremony and public representations created fact issue that they were married, entitling Rowe to maintenance/fees | No marriage license or certificate; parties knew no lawful marriage existed; relationship is a CIR | No question of fact: parties were not legally married; characterized as CIR; maintenance/RCW 26.09 claims unavailable |
| Whether relationship termination condition occurred (timing/counseling) | Contends counseling not completed, so question whether termination triggered higher payment amount | Parties’ actions (moving out, cessation of counseling) show relationship ended and counseling provision was waived | No material fact: relationship ended when Rowe moved out; no trial needed; trial date properly stricken |
| Award of attorney fees | Challenges entitlement and reasonableness of amount awarded | Fee award authorized by contract; prevailing party entitled to fees; amount reasonable per trial court | Entitlement affirmed but amount remanded: trial court failed to enter findings of fact and conclusions to support reasonableness; remand for findings and determination of appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Matson, 107 Wn.2d 479 (1986) (two-pronged test: substantive fairness first, then procedural fairness inquiry)
- In re Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895 (2009) (procedural-unfairness considerations include short review time before wedding)
- Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339 (1995) (defines committed intimate relationship and presumption as to property acquired during CIRs)
- Kellar v. Estate of Kellar, 172 Wn. App. 562 (2012) (agreement enforceability can be decided on procedural fairness alone)
- G.W.-F. v. In re Parentage of G.W.F., 170 Wn. App. 631 (2012) (CIR property-agreement principles)
- Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398 (1998) (trial court must enter findings to support attorney-fee awards)