A Carluzzo Rochkind & Smith note: Following is an article by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. We did not handle this case, but it brings up important marital points your divorce lawyer should be familiar with. For more than 30 years our divorce lawyers in Manassas have helped clients with such matters in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and throughout Northern Virginia. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please contact our law firm at (703) 361-0776.
Domestic Relations: Circuit court erred when it distributed marital home
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 7/13/2025
Where the circuit court awarded husband a lump sum award calculated as half the value of the couple’s combined ownership interests in the marital home, it erred. A premarital agreement explicitly foreclosed any award to husband based on wife’s separate ownership interest in the marital home, regardless of any contributions made by husband.
Background
Jennifer Michaela Bethel appeals the circuit court’s final decree of divorce from Sean Robert Bethel. Wife argues the circuit court distributed the parties’ marital home in a manner inconsistent with their premarital agreement by awarding husband a lump sum award calculated as half the value of the couple’s combined ownership interests in the home.
Analysis
Wife argues the circuit court erred by awarding husband the lump sum of $297,506 because the premarital agreement “explicitly foreclosed” any award to husband based on wife’s separate ownership interest in the marital home, regardless of any contributions made by husband. She further contends the circuit court’s finding that husband did not understand the effect of the premarital agreement in connection with the documents assigning ownership interests in the marital home did not justify its “departure from the [a]greement’s plain terms,” especially considering the circuit court had already declined to set aside the premarital agreement as unenforceable.
The circuit court’s lump sum award of $297,506 is inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of the agreement and the trial court’s own findings, and is contrary to established precedent. The plain language of the agreement states each party’s separate property acquired either before or during the marriage would “remain [that party’s] separate property” and the property’s ownership would be determined according to the “written evidence of title such as a deed.”
In fact, the circuit court acknowledged that it was bound by the terms of the premarital agreement. The parties presented evidence of the deed indicating the marital home was titled as a tenancy in common with husband owning a three percent interest and wife owning a 48.5 percent interest. Therefore, the circuit court was not authorized to divide husband and wife’s combined ownership interests in the home equally.
Although the circuit court attempted to characterize the $297,506 award as “other payment” that was “not inextricably linked to the home,” the couple’s ownership interests in the marital home formed the entire basis for the circuit court’s calculation of the award. The circuit court specifically found “51.5 of the property is marital” and explained “that’s why I split it that way.”
The circuit court determined husband was entitled to the $297,506 lump sum award in part based on his contributions to the marriage, including mortgage payments. The plain language of the parties’ premarital agreement, however, stated that its terms regarding separate property applied regardless of any “monetary or non-monetary contributions” made by either party. Under the terms of the premarital agreement, the circuit court did not have authority to divide the marital home based on the parties’ contributions.
In addition, the circuit court reasoned that the lump sum award was appropriate because husband “clearly d[id] not understand” the effect of the terms of the premarital agreement combined with the document he signed at closing assigning ownership interests in the marital home. But this finding, even if true, does not demonstrate husband entered the premarital agreement itself involuntarily or that the premarital agreement was unconscionable or that husband received insufficient disclosure of wife’s finances. Moreover, the circuit court expressly evaluated the premarital agreement under this standard and declined to set it aside as unenforceable. Once the trial court found the agreement enforceable, its duty was to apply the terms as written.
Reversed and remanded.
Bethel v. Bethel, Record No. 1063-23-4, June 24, 2025. CAV (Bernhard). From the Circuit Court of Arlington County (DiMatteo). Matthew W. Edwards (Mallory P. Broberg; Ain & Bank, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. Sean Bethel, pro se. VLW 025-7-156. 10 pp.
If you are in need of experienced divorce lawyers who gets results, please contact us online or by calling 703-361-0776.
Divorce lawyers in Manassas serving Fairfax County, Prince William County, and all of Northern Virginia.
