Marriage Of Kieturakis

138 Cal. App. 4th 56 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W began their relationship in high school in Poland, were married in 1984 and had one child born in 1991. H is a surgeon and an inventor of surgical devices. W has the equivalent of a master's degree in English, was active in the Solidarity movement, and served as an administrative assistant to Lech Walesa. In the United States, W had been a waitress, travel agent, Polish language lecturer at Stanford, and partner in a business that translated books into Polish and published them in Poland. H and W entered mediation and reached a marital settlement agreement (MSA). The agreement was subsequently incorporated into their dissolution judgment. The MSA provided that H would pay W $500 per month in family support, and that spousal support would terminate on June 1, 2007. The agreement stated that they understood the fiduciary duties owed by each party and were aware of the contents of the agreement and that it was entered into free from duress, fraud, undue influence, coercion, or misrepresentation. About two years after the MSA, W filed a motion to set it aside based on fraud, duress, and disclosure issues. W filed an income and expense declaration listing no income and monthly expenses of $9,326. W claimed she had “acted under tremendous pressure” from H and been intimidated by him into signing the MSA. W refused to waive the confidentiality of the mediation process. The court admitted the evidence over W’s objection. The court also found that H bore the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence. The mediation evidence defeated W's case. W contends on appeal that the evidence was wrongly admitted.