A 2026 California court case is a lesson that every couple with assets needs to hear. In Dutton v. Anderson Zeigler, P.C., decided by a California Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026, a man named Steven Dutton lost $3.4 million in a divorce because he never signed a prenuptial agreement with his wife, Theresa. During their marriage, Steven and his brother bought their family’s California farming business from their mother. Steven wanted that stock to stay in his family and eventually pass to his children, not Theresa. So he did what felt responsible. He hired an attorney. The attorney set up a trust, called it a separate property trust, and put all of the stock inside it. Steven thought he was protected.
He was not. When Steven filed for divorce in 2017, he found out that under California community property law, that stock had been shared property from day one. The trust did not change that. The name on the trust did not change that. The only thing that could have changed it was a signed agreement from Theresa saying the stock was his, and nobody ever asked her to sign one. The result was a check for more than $3.4 million.
What Was Steven Thinking?
On paper, Steven was thinking what we all would have in his shoes. He wanted to keep his property in the family, and he thought he was doing everything responsibly. He did not procrastinate. He did not try to hide anything. He hired a professional, told the professional his goals, and paid for the professional to fulfill them. The trust the attorney set up for Steven even had the words “separate property” in its name. If you were him, you probably would have assumed the problem was solved.
There was one thing Steven never thought about. His whole plan was built around what would happen if he died first, and what he wanted was for his children, rather than a future husband of Theresa’s, to end up with the family business. He and his attorney never once discussed what would happen if the marriage ended in divorce instead. But that was the ending he got.
His problem was not solved, because a trust cannot do what a prenup can, no matter how hard you try.
What Steven was Missing
In California, most of the assets that either spouse acquires during their marriage end up belonging to both of them. It does not matter whose name is on those assets, they still become shared. What matters is when it was acquired, and what it was bought with. Steven bought the stock while married, using money he earned while married, so from the very first payment, half of the stock was Theresa’s.
If a couple wants to change that, California law requires a written agreement signed by the spouse who is giving up their interest. Because this agreement has to come from the other person, it is not something that can be done alone, no matter how carefully any paperwork or trust is drafted. This is where Steven’s plan fell apart. Steven never obtained an agreement from his wife in which she stated that she was okay with giving up her right to millions of dollars in stock. This distinction ended up being the whole case, and why all of Steven’s intentions amounted to virtually nothing. A trust moves property into a container, but it does not change who owned that property before it went in, and if it ever comes out, who will own it then. Theresa never signed anything, so under California law the stock went into that trust as shared property, and it was still shared property when it came back out.
Steven’s Case Against His Attorney
Another layer in this case turned Steven’s unfortunate outcome into a lawsuit. Steven sued the firm, Anderson Zeigler, for malpractice. He claims his attorney never told him that his goal for the business put him in conflict with his wife, never advised that Theresa needed her own lawyer, and never obtained her signature on the one document that would have made the stock his.
None of that has been decided yet. The attorney died in 2020, and the case is still going. In June 2026, an appeals court sent the malpractice claims back for trial, finding there was enough evidence for a jury to consider whether Steven would have ended up better off had he been advised differently.
So the blame is still an open question. The $3.4 million is not. Steven paid that years ago, and nothing that happens at trial gets it back from Theresa.
Why This Matters Even If You Are Not a Millionaire
It’s easy to read this as a story about a rich family that does not apply to you, and it’s easy to shrug it off, and think that you do not need a prenup because you are not a millionaire. But this case applies to almost everyone, regardless of financial status.
The pattern is the part to notice. Someone has an asset they think of as theirs, whether that is an inheritance, a business, a share of a family property, or money from before the marriage. They want to keep it separate. Instead of raising it with their partner, they look for a solution they can handle privately, usually through a professional and usually without the other person in the room.
There is no private version of this. Whatever you use, the other spouse has to agree in writing that the asset is not theirs. A trust does not do it. A will does not do it. Titling something in your own name does not do it. Steven learned this the hard way, by writing a check for $3.4 million.
The Bottom Line
Steven Dutton hired a lawyer, funded a trust, and still lost millions of dollars, because the one signature that mattered was his wife’s, a signature that no one ever asked for.
A prenup is the version of this conversation that happens early, in the open, is legally binding, and puts both people at the table while there is still time to decide, together.
If you have an asset you think of as separate: does your partner know that is how you think of it, and have they ever agreed to it in writing? If the answer to either question is no, then whatever you have set up may be a lot less protective than it looks.
Dennett Stibel is a Tufts University student, Class of 2029, who handles legal research and content at HelloPrenup. She hopes to attend law school and become a lawyer who advocates for those who can’t advocate for themselves. Her work focuses on prenups, postnups, and making family law easier to understand.
0 Comments