Konou v. Wilson
150 Cal.Rptr.3d 699
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wilson and Konou executed a May 9, 2006 domestic partnership agreement (DPA) with property waivers and a requirement that amendments be in writing; they registered as domestic partners on May 17, 2006.
- The DPA was executed after California’s Domestic Partner Act (2003) and before same-sex marriage was available nationwide; the act made DP rights resemble those of spouses to the extent allowed by law.
- In 2008, Wilson and Konou married during the window when same-sex marriages were legal in California; Wilson died later that year.
- Konou filed to obtain an omitted spouse share in Wilson’s estate; the probate court ruled the DPA remained valid after marriage and Konou had waived his rights.
- The parties stipulated two legal questions for the probate court: whether marriage invalidated the DPA and whether the DPA validly waived Konou’s rights as an omitted spouse; the court ruled in Konou’s favor on neither issue, affirming the orders.
- This appeal follows, with the higher court reaffirming that a post-DP Act prenuptial-like agreement is not automatically voided by marriage and that the waiver of omitted-spouse rights in the DPA is enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does marriage invalidate the domestic partnership agreement? | Konou: marriage license terminates DP rights; DP ≠ marriage. | Wilson/estate: marriage does not automatically negate an enforceable DP under the DP Act. | No; marriage does not invalidate the DPA; it remains enforceable. |
| Is the domestic partnership agreement a valid waiver of omitted-spouse rights? | Konou: waiver may be invalid if rights differ post-marriage. | Waiver language in the DPA clearly waives rights to property on death; valid under Probate Code. | Yes; the DPA constitutes an enforceable waiver of omitted-spouse rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) (established rights of same-sex couples to marry and related constitutional analysis; informs DP vs. marriage status)
- Estate of Axcelrod, 23 Cal.2d 761 (1944) (marriage contracts and status effects; early view on civil contracts affecting marriage)
- In re Dawley, 17 Cal.3d 342 (1976) (premarital agreements and enforceability principles)
- Mansell v. Board of Administration, 30 Cal.App.4th 539 (1994) (waiver and enforcement of rights in estate planning)
- Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal constitutional analysis of Prop 8; relevance to marriage vs. DP status)
- Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (upheld Prop 8 while validating certain marriages; context for DP/marriage distinctions)