- Introduction
On June 9, 2026, a Washington Court of Appeals decision, In re Marriage of Roman, affirmed the defeat of a postnuptial agreement through the equitable doctrine of detrimental reliance. The husband submitted this agreement to the court, asking for enforcement, but it was rejected purely based on the wife’s unchallenged testimony that her husband had orally promised that he would not enforce it. She argued that she relied on that promise to her detriment. Detrimental reliance was applied in this case as an equitable bar to enforcement, and ultimately prevented a legally valid postnuptial agreement from being enforced. This nuance is the central issue that practitioners should take note of when reviewing this case.
In the state of Washington, it is impermissible to obtain an oral postnuptial agreement, and a formal oral revocation of a written marital agreement is additionally insufficient, in all cases. However, In re Marriage of Roman, illustrates an important distinction. What made this case different is the distinction between a claim of detrimental reliance and simply an oral revocation, which ultimately defeated the postnuptial agreement. For practitioners, this case illustrates the importance of caution when it comes to oral promises made during a marriage, as they can, under proper circumstances, defeat a postnuptial agreement entirely.
- Facts of the Case
Gregory (husband) and Quinby Roman (wife) were married in August of 2013, and had two children. In September of 2022, Quinby filed a petition for divorce. Gregory appeared through counsel and submitted a postnuptial agreement to the court that classified their marital home as his separate property, as it was purchased with money that was gifted to him by his family. Due to multiple procedural circumstances involving his attorney’s withdrawal and confusion regarding proper contact information, Gregory failed to appear at trial, and the court proceeded without him or his testimony.
Quinby gave unchallenged testimony regarding years of domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect that she had endured at the hands of Gregory. She also testified that Gregory had orally promised her that if they were to get divorced, he would not enforce the postnuptial agreement, and their marital home would remain a shared asset. With no one to contradict her, the trial court found detrimental reliance, agreeing that Quinby acted in a certain way under the assumption that the postnup would not be enforced. Thus, the postnuptial agreement was defeated, and the home was characterized as community property. Gregory moved to vacate the final orders, but his motion was denied. This denial was later affirmed on appeal. His challenge to the property distribution was not even considered, as his appellate brief was missing key legal necessities, such as citations. The finding of detrimental reliance stood.
- Legal Issue
The central issue in this case is whether an oral promise not to enforce a written postnuptial agreement can be sufficient in defeating the agreement entirely, due to a spouse’s claim of detrimental reliance. Washington law is clear that postnuptial agreements must be in writing, and no oral marital agreements will be considered enforceable. However, when it comes to the equitable doctrine of detrimental reliance, the question of what an oral promise can accomplish is much broader than the written requirement alone might suggest.
- Court Analysis
The trial court declined to enforce the postnuptial agreement due to a finding of detrimental reliance. This decision rested on one source of evidence: Quinby’s testimony. She testified, unchallenged, that Gregory had promised her that he would not enforce the postnuptial agreement upon divorce, and that this promise altered the way in which she acted, which ultimately led to her detriment. No corroborating evidence is referenced in the record. Gregory was not at the trial, and thus could not offer any conflicting evidence. The trial court found her testimony compelling, and found that she had acted to her detriment in reliance on her husband’s promise, thus declining to enforce the postnuptial agreement.
Detrimental reliance is an equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking back a promise when another party is acting in such a way that they are relying on it to their detriment. In Washington, oral marital agreements are not enforceable. In this case, detrimental reliance did not change this rule, because that oral promise is not considered a binding marital agreement. Rather, the court considered enforcing the postnuptial agreement to be inequitable, due to a reliance that Quinby had on her husband’s promise. The court never examined whether Quinby’s testimony claiming detrimental reliance was legally sound, as Gregory’s brief upon appeal was improperly formatted, containing no legal analysis or proper citations.
- Practical Implications
In re Marriage of Roman reveals a vulnerability in marital agreements that practitioners should be aware of when drafting. A written agreement, even if legally sound and agreed upon during the time of signing, is not automatically enforceable. If a party makes an oral promise to not enforce a marital agreement during marriage, and another party claims that they detrimentally relied upon that promise, a Washington court may decline to enforce the agreement (regardless of its formal validity).
The detrimental reliance issue is where this case carries its most direct significance for practitioners. An oral promise to not enforce the agreement, if the other party is found to have relied on the promise, can be enough. Gregory submitted a legally sound postnuptial agreement to the court, asking for enforcement. The agreement was rejected based solely on Quinby’s unchallenged testimony, which was found sufficient under detrimental reliance principles. Practitioners should advise clients to remain cautious of any oral statement made about whether or not their marital agreement will be enforced, as it could carry real, legal risk.
- Conclusion
In re Marriage of Roman confirms that detrimental reliance can entirely defeat a postnuptial agreement based solely on one spouse’s testimony of an oral promise not to enforce it. For practitioners, this case carries a warning that should be noted. Clients must be aware that, even in the absence of a formal written waiver or amendment, a simple oral promise may be enough to defeat a legally sound marital agreement. The only reliable protection against detrimental reliance is a written record in which the parties state their actual intentions.