In re Marriage of Chez

Court properly found that joint property provision of parties' premarital agreement (PMA) was clear and unambiguous, even though it was silent on how to apportion costs in distribution upon dissolution. Parties, through PMA, agreed to opt out of coverage under Marriage Act and to set their own rules as to property. Court properly distributed two joint tenancy properties equally, and made no order of reimbursement of costs spent on one property, as PMA did not provide for it. Testimony of parties as to oral agreements is not relevant to interpretation of PMA, as PMA provides that any agreements as to real property must be written. (QUINN and PIERCE, concurring.)