Lee v. Lee
228 W. Va. 483
W. Va.2011Background
- Patricia E. Lee and Charles W. Lee married in 2007 and separated in 2009 after disclosure of an extramarital affair.
- Prenuptial agreement drafted mainly by Mr. Lee, entered shortly before marriage, with no counsel for either party.
- Spousal-support provision provided housing at no cost and a vehicle, contingent on separation and the occurrence of an “another relationship.”
- Mrs. Lee continued to reside in the marital home post-separation under the prenuptial terms.
- Family Court found Mrs. Lee had entered into “another relationship” with three men and ordered her to vacate the home.
- Circuit Court later held the phrase is ambiguous, yet deemed Mr. Lee’s intent more credible; ultimately, the circuit court’s denial of the appeal was reviewed and reversed; final order remanded for entry of an order consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'another relationship' in the prenup | Lee; 'another relationship' means a committed relationship akin to marriage. | Lee; 'another relationship' means dating or sexual involvement. | Ambiguous term; ambiguity requires interpreting the parties’ intent. |
| Standard of review for contract ambiguity and extrinsic evidence | Appellant’s intent should control; lower courts erred in deference. | Lower courts correctly balanced ambiguity with credibility findings. | Contract ambiguity triggers review of intent; deference to lower courts’ factual findings applies. |
| Credibility determinations and construction against the drafter | Lower court erred by crediting Mr. Lee over Mrs. Lee’s intent. | Mr. Lee’s representations were more credible. | Abuse of discretion to credit Mr. Lee; ambiguity construed in Mrs. Lee’s favor; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gant v. Gant, 174 W.Va. 740 (1985) (upholds prenuptial enforcement absent unconscionability)
- Berkeley County Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Vitro Corp. of America, 152 W.Va. 252 (1968) (contract ambiguity is a question of law)
- Jessee v. Aycoth, 202 W.Va. 215 (1998) (ambiguity decided with extrinsic evidence; standard is clearly erroneous review)
- Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 175 W.Va. 337 (1985) (contract terms susceptible to multiple meanings; ambiguity exists)
- Frazier & Oxley v. Cummings, 212 W.Va. 275 (2002) (ambiguity analysis and construction rules for contracts)
- Henson v. Lamb, 120 W.Va. 552 (1938) (ambiguous terms construed against the drafter)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52 (1995) (contract interpretation; ambiguity is a legal question)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 69 v. City of Fairmont, 196 W.Va. 97 (1996) (clarifies deference in factual interpretation of extrinsic evidence)