§ 6.04 ANTENUPTIAL OBLIGATIONS

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§ 6.04 ANTENUPTIAL OBLIGATIONS

Any obligation incurred by a person prior to marriage obviously cannot be a "community" obligation in the sense of that label. It therefore usually is labeled as a "separate" obligation and is used in that sense in Chapter 4, § 4.10. The ordinary rule that a separate obligation of one spouse cannot be enforced against community property or the separate property of the other spouse is subject to important exceptions. To distinguish these exceptions, which are of advantage to particular types of antenuptial creditors, they are discussed under the label "antenuptial" obligations. These "antenuptial" obligations include tort claims; child support and maintenance (alimony); antenuptial federal tax liens imposed by federal supremacy reasoning; antenuptial contractual obligations reduced to judgment within three years of marriage; and decrees using life insurance coverage to assure performance of support and maintenance obligations. These matters are discussed in detail in Harry M. Cross, The Community Property Law in Washington (Revised 1985), 61 WASH. L. REV. 13, 125-31 (1986).

In Fisch v. Marler, 1 Wn.2d 698, 97 P.2d 147 (1939), the court retreated from the previously existing rule of complete immunity for community property from all separate obligations of a debtor spouse and permitted enforcement against the debtor's community wages for child support and alimony claims, at least to the extent that there was no inequitable invasion of the community property rights of the new wife. In Stafford v. Stafford, 10 Wn.2d 649, 117 P.2d 753 (1941), the court refused to extend the Fisch principle to permit enforcement against community real property. In Van Dyke v. Thompson, 95 Wn.2d 726, 630 P.2d 420 (1981), the court held that community wages of a noncustodial stepparent could not be reached to enforce the child support obligation of the noncustodial parent spouse. The 1983 amendment, discussed below, has changed these rules.

In United States v. Overman, 424 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1970), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an antenuptial federal tax lien was enforceable by sale of community property and allocation of half of the proceeds in satisfaction of the lien, preserving the other half for the nondebtor spouse. The parties had argued over whether the immunity of community property from antenuptial obligations was a substantive part of Washington law that would be effective against the lien or was merely a procedural protection. The court held, on the basis of federal supremacy, that the debtor spouse had sufficient "property" or "rights to property" within the meaning of I.R.C. § 6321 (1982) so that the asset could be sold and half of the proceeds used to satisfy the lien. How the nondebtor spouse held the other half of the proceeds was not made clear. It may be that a court faced with that question would use the analysis of deElche v. Jacobsen, 95 Wn.2d 237, 622 P.2d 835 (1980), discussed in § 6.03[3], above. In that case, the Washington Supreme Court held the remaining half of community personal property that the separate tort creditor could not reach would remain community property during marriage, with a right of reimbursement in the nondebtor spouse. Upon termination of the marriage, the nondebtor spouse would then hold the same amount as separate property as if the separate tort judgment had not been satisfied out of community property.

In 1969, RCW 26.16.200 was amended to afford limited relief for the antenuptial creditor: "earnings and accumulations" of a spouse could be reached for an antenuptial debt if the claim was reduced to judgment within three years of the marriage. Cf. United States v. Moberg, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1140 (E.D. Wash. 2002) (United States may not reach community property to collect on premarital student loan because claim not reduced to judgment within three years of marriage). The amendment also added that "for the purpose of this section neither [spouse] shall be construed to have any interest in the earnings of the other."

Uncertainties about the sweep of the 1969 amendment have only partially been answered. The three-year period within which judgment must be entered may precede...