Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W married in June 1975. H was 44 and W was 20. W had been born in Italy but migrated to the United States when she was fourteen. H was a builder and a real estate developer who owned a restaurant at the time of the marriage. H testified that he was worth three million dollars when the parties married, but he presented no documents to support that statement. Two children were born of the marriage. The family enjoyed a high standard of living. Their income tax returns showed a gross income of $540,000 in 1984 and $476,000 in 1985. W contributed no income to the family. In mid-1985, H informed W that he would divorce her unless she agreed to certain terms regarding their economic relationship. To punctuate his demand, H moved out of the marital bedroom and into an apartment above their garage. H had consulted a divorce attorney and was aware of his economic exposure to H for equitable distribution and alimony. H admitted to a net worth of $4.7 million in 1985, $1.7 million more than he had when he married W. H was informed that any agreement between them had to be fair and made only after full disclosure of relevant information regarding the parties' assets. H was also aware that W should be represented by counsel. W did not want a divorce. She consulted counsel and was aware of her rights. When she next contacted counsel, in the fall of 1985, she informed him that H was to pay her $500,000 in the event of a future divorce in full satisfaction of plaintiff's equitable distribution and alimony obligations. W was advised not to sign the deal. W did not take the advice and wanted to preserve the marriage and did not want her children to grow up in a broken family. Her attorney testified that W told him that she would sign anything in an effort to preserve the marriage. The agreement was presented to W as a take it or leave it and if left a divorce would be initiated. It was signed, and the marriage resumed until 1994 when H filed a complaint for divorce. In 1994, H’s assets totaled $14,291,500 with a net worth of $11,241,500. The issues are: whether the agreement was the result of coercion or duress and, therefore, unenforceable; and whether the agreement was unfair and, therefore, unenforceable. Regarding the fairness issue, a subsidiary issue is whether the agreement should be measured for fairness as the facts were in 1985 or as the facts were in 1994 when plaintiff filed his divorce complaint. W also contends that in 1989, she and the H agreed to nullify the agreement and that Hand she signed a paper to that effect. W could not produce the signed paper at the trial, contending that H had stolen it from her and destroyed it. The trial court found that the agreement was not the result of coercion or duress, that it was fair as measured in 1985, and that defendant's contention that the parties had nullified the agreement was not credible. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co