39796-3
Wash. Ct. App.Dec 31, 2024Background
- Genesis and Scott Dashiell executed a separation agreement addressing the division of property and child arrangements prior to initiating dissolution of their marriage.
- The agreement assigned various real estate and business interests but did not assign values to six real properties or to Scott’s 50% share of Cascade Equipment Company, LLC (CES).
- Scott did not disclose the value or full financial information about CES during negotiations for the agreement.
- Genesis eventually challenged the enforceability of the agreement after learning Scott finalized the dissolution without waiting the mandatory 90 days and failed to answer discovery regarding CES’s assets.
- The trial court enforced the separation agreement and Genesis appealed, arguing lack of disclosure rendered the agreement unfair.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Scott’s nondisclosure of CES’s value precluded enforcement and remanded for equitable distribution; Genesis was awarded reasonable attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of property agreement | Scott failed to disclose CES’s value, so fairness could not be determined | Parties knowingly left out certain asset values, so agreement should stand | Agreement unenforceable due to nondisclosure; remanded for equitable distribution |
| Compelling discovery | Scott did not comply with discovery requests | Discovery unnecessary due to binding agreement | Court should have ordered discovery responses |
| Application of CR 2A / RCW 2.44.010(1) | Not addressed directly by Genesis | Court could enforce written separation agreement | These provisions do not render an otherwise unenforceable agreement enforceable |
| Attorney fees for discovery motions | Entitled to fees due to Scott’s refusal to answer discovery | No justification as agreement was fair | Attorney fees awarded to Genesis under CR 37 and RAP 18.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cohn, 18 Wn. App. 502 (parties must fully disclose amount, character and value of property in separation agreement)
- In re Marriage of Hadley, 88 Wn.2d 649 (fairness of marital property agreements depends on full disclosure and independent advice)
- In re Marriage of Shaffer, 47 Wn. App. 189 (harmonizing fairness requirements for separation agreements)
- Morris v. Maks, 69 Wn. App. 865 (purpose of CR 2A is to avoid disputes regarding settlement agreements)