Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W married on August 17, 1993, and had four children: JL was born in 1995; BL was born in 1997; KL was born in 2006, and HL was born in 2010. W became a licensed registered nurse in 2009, but she stayed at home to raise the children throughout most of the marriage. H worked as a tool fisher, and from 2006 through 2015 his annual earnings ranged from $155,063 to $230,260. H was laid-off and began collecting unemployment in September 2015, after the couple had separated and filed for divorce. H moved out of the home in April 2015. On August 7, 2015, W presented H with a stipulated decree prepared by her attorney. The stipulated decree awarded Wife sole legal custody of the three minor children and granted H reasonable visitation with the children at W's discretion. H would pay Wife $3,025 a month in child support and $3,000 a month in alimony. W would keep the marital home, 100% of Husband's 401(k), three vehicles, an all-terrain vehicle, several firearms, two bank accounts held with the children, and the Disney Vacation Club accounts. H would receive the camper and the contents within it and several firearms. W would assume the home mortgage debt and the debt to Herberger's, while H would assume the combined loans from Uinta Bank, the loan from Trona Valley FCU, the balance on the Cabela's Club Visa card, the debt to Main One Financial, Wells Fargo Financial, and Bank of the West, the taxes and outstanding balances on the Disney Vacation Club accounts, and all medical and dental debts incurred before the date of the stipulated decree. H was to maintain a life insurance policy with a minimum $500,000 death benefit with W named as the primary beneficiary and the minor children as the secondary beneficiaries. H and W both signed the stipulated decree before a notary public that same day. W delayed filing a complaint for divorce until September 23, 2015. W submitted the stipulated decree to the district court. D filed an objection to the entry of the stipulated decree in that he was intoxicated at the time he signed the document; he has a history of difficulty with reading comprehension and he did not understand he was signing a divorce decree; he was coerced into signing the document under the belief that he and W would reconcile if he signed it; 4) the property distribution in the decree is unconscionable and inequitable; 5) the debt division was inequitable; 6) the $3,000 per month alimony payments are inequitable; 7) the child support calculation is based on now inaccurate income calculations; and 8) it is not in the best interests of the children for W to have sole legal custody of the minor children. The court concluded the agreement was an enforceable, non-revocable contract that was supported by consideration. The court concluded that the agreement was not unconscionable as H had a choice. H appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co