Natasha D. Claybrook v. Byron K. Claybrook

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/27/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090144 Natasha Dunn Claybrook v. Byron K. Claybrook Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-700) MOORE, J u d g e . Natasha denial Ala. Dunn Claybrook o f h e rpostjudgment R. C i v . P., seeking judgment o f t h e T u s c a l o o s a ("the w i f e " ) motion, filed to alter, Circuit appeals pursuant amend, Court from t h e t o Rule 59, or vacate the ("the t r i a l court"), 2090144 in which the trial court Claybrook ("the stipulated settlement divorced husband") and the wife from incorporated agreement. We Byron the K. parties' reverse. Background The 1996. all wife Three three parties and the separated agreement, the arrangement, party, the On a waiver the a of the other. become agreement, effective and judgment of d i v o r c e . The with on the trial court of e a c h may benefits binding According the 2 at only 2009. upon the In addition a document In that child-custody their from marital the have had to the other to the entry the executed the express provisions therein husband f i l e d J u l y 22, the while 2009, a alimony retirement to to to interest time Divorce." right any parties' of any of the and division a release of marriage p a r t i e s executed and terms parties' divorce. stipulated support, of 25, the p a r t i e s executed Contemplation parties child October J u l y 10, uncontested forms, in on c h i l d r e n were m i n o r s at the f o r an "Agreement property, married of the husband's a t t o r n e y , court-mandated entitled of i n June 2009. documents n e c e s s a r y the were c h i l d r e n were born of the p a r t i e s ' the o f f i c e to husband were of a documents 2090144 On J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e w i f e m o v e d t h e t r i a l a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order that motion, the wife parties executed engaged i n behaviors divorce mental, the parties' minor domestic violence that removing the designed wife to prevent alleged documents also that children; involved acts court's the wife from seeing had signed under and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , counsel the duress controlled legal husband to the wife, harassment and t h r e a t s jurisdiction the children. a TRO. motion The and she f i l e d wife t h e TRO was the wife of and The and c o e r c i o n . a l l the She parties' f o r the benefit of not represented submitted 3 by motion pro se. A t an A u g u s t 1 7 , 2009, h e a r i n g f o r a TRO, and uncontested-divorce On A u g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e w i f e m o v e d t o d i s m i s s for had and had been f o r c e d t o seek s t a t e and t h e c h i l d r e n . counsel, and a f t e r t h e s h e h a d no a s s e t s w i t h w h i c h t o a s s i s t a n c e s u c h as f o o d stamps and M e d i c a i d herself of the p o l i c e ; the the husband o b t a i n h e r own l e g a l according from she that that, the In or v e r b a l abuse d i r e c t e d a t h e r on J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , alleged assets children before documents, and a c t s amounted t o p h y s i c a l , and ("TRO") a g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d . a l l e g e d t h a t , both the court to enter her motion h e l d on t h e w i f e ' s a handwritten motion to 2090144 the trial for a TRO court the to as and On and the notice of Through 26, legal t h a t the a g r e e m e n t s as 28, to the of wife on wife filed h u s b a n d had the wife, and not Divorce asserted through for that The the Cause." she under husband. a had duress, wife also honored h i s o b l i g a t i o n s and i n those documents, t h a t the husband had support, and the c h i l d r e n from the m a r i t a l home, and had been i n v o l v e d w i t h the p a r t i e s on occasions that the executed. h u s b a n d had The entry of a judgment of d i v o r c e , but their inequity, she the Withdraw documents the been would served paid had withdraw divorce not documents trial the 2009, Contemplation from s e t out child The was for "Repudiate uncontested-divorce threats order counsel to and request motion counsel. moved the asserted legal counsel, divorce." uncontested that counsel, legal the the August her coercion, that On in to withdraw her the w i f e ' s A copy of 2009, Agreement executed with appearance. legal Parties' noting husband's August desire granting submitted. on her "proce[ed] an o r d e r motion proceed her indicating and entered TRO wife court no longer two wife she consented 4 did forced that not the the wife police since contest i n d i c a t e d t h a t , due to the provisions the the to of 2090144 the p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d documents r e l a t i n g t o the d i v i s i o n parties' marital property submitted numerous e x h i b i t s On S e p t e m b e r 1, of divorce, and child i n support 2009, t h e t r i a l incorporating into The t r i a l or Vacate the Final entered judgment a judgment the terms and J u l y 10, 2009, agreement. 1 trial court court also On filed Judgment Agreement F o r P r o p e r t y D i v i s i o n " either wife motion. the p r e v i o u s l y executed On S e p t e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e w i f e exhibits. The c o u r t made no m e n t i o n i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t o f t h e wife's motion to repudiate Amend, of her court that p r o v i s i o n s set f o r t h i n the p a r t i e s ' support. of the denied denied the wife's any other a "Motion to A l t e r , as to and a b r i e f , O c t o b e r 28, 2009, a f t e r agreement. hearing the with Parties' supporting arguments, the postjudgment motion; the pending requests trial for relief by party. A l t h o u g h t h e h e a d i n g o f t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n and brief i n d i c a t e d t h a t the w i f e o b j e c t e d only to the terms of the p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n as s e t f o r t h i n t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement, which had been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment, the s u b s t a n c e o f t h e w i f e ' s argument i n d i c a t e d t h a t she a l s o c h a l l e n g e d t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e m e n t as t o c u s t o d y and child support. The w i f e a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had been unaware o f t h e w i f e ' s motion to r e p u d i a t e the p a r t i e s ' agreement u n t i l a f t e r the e n t r y o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 9 , d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . 1 5 2090144 The On wife appeal, her filed she her asserts postjudgment notice that of appeal on N o v e m b e r 5, the court erred that motion, trial the trial court r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n d e v i a t i n g from the mandatory guidelines o f R u l e 32, divorce, and the a reasonable wife incurred that in this A l a . R. the trial Jud. in 2009. denying committed child-support Admin., i n the judgment court erred in amount f o r a t t o r n e y ' s failing fees to and of award expenses case. Analysis In light her of postjudgment her agreement, motion repudiate the asserted that, previously executed We discretion and wife that "Agreements that the 900, 332 of 901 So. this and 722, court 724 to App. accident, Grantham 1995) (Ala. divorce v. 6 its not actions be set Grantham, Brocato See also 656 v. are aside, s u r p r i s e o r some (quoting 1 97 6 ) ) . exceeded reversed. such agreements w i l l nature.'" (Ala. Civ. 2d trial parties 'except for fraud, c o l l u s i o n , ground reversible i t s j u d g m e n t m u s t be between generally binding, committed in i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h a t agreement i n t o the judgment of d i v o r c e . the court wife in with trial the error agree the to motion, other So. 2d Brocato, Wilcoxen v. 2090144 Wilcoxen, 907 court the has repudiate party an to show collusion, nature."'") 2d 1373, This 1375 a action. in ( A l a . C i v . App. authority accident, Culver of a stipulated See, e.g., enforced trial 903 that, against court So. 2d in drafting 835 challenge to agreement in inequity); App. 2001) (Ala. various the a Morrison v. (addressing by of 2d 23 So. a party 21, action a wife's binding binding grounds 837 So. 2d to of 840 on v. and and the Allen, husband's stipulated the to the agreement be the divorce (addressing challenge 7 not to a judgment); A l l e n of Morrison, wife's are 2004) on in settlement they App. 597 seeking (addressing s u c h a g r e e m e n t s may enforcement divorce ground defenses agreement supra a divorce Civ. includes 1992))). asserted parties, to that i n t u r n B o r d e r s v. B o r d e r s , Wilcoxen, the i f 'Good c a u s e 641 trial party divorce some o t h e r settlement although ("A a or defense of f r a u d i n the making of the recognizing permit Culver, v. addressed contract 2005) of ... surprise ( A l a . C i v . App. has to contemplation 'good c a u s e . ' (quoting court aside 449 1994), quoting enforceability set 447, agreement ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d discretionary i s able "fraud, this So. settlement duress (Ala. divorce and Civ. judgment 2090144 that incorporated parties' asserted that the purported and had been settlement divorce Civ. alleged settlement judgment); App. enforceability duress, of Culver, v. was Elliott, 667 wife's settlement a agreement misrepresentation, supra (husband not So. moved 2d to 116 (Ala. to the of deceit set the grounds the and final into defenses on wife a incorporated (addressing coercion, husband); improperly Elliott 1995) agreement agreement; by aside her alimony p r o v i s i o n of d i v o r c e judgment, which i n c o r p o r a t e d agreement the parties, supra on grounds (addressing misrepresentation settlement that he her Tidwell a mother's in attorney thus, aside mistake had wife not divorce v. had had of with her supra a conflict represented judgment 505 inequity); claim in negotiating "ably Tidwell, and connection agreement); Borders, a s s i s t e d the and, of 2d fraud and execution of a interest settlement her," as incorporating So. 1236 that (Ala. failure agreement in a divorce of c o n t r a c t , f r a u d , duress, 8 action and on at Civ. the inequity); claim the time agreement, a basis ( a d d r e s s i n g w i f e ' s defenses to the enforcement of a settlement Grantham, (addressing wife's of of to set agreement); App. 1987 ) stipulated grounds and of Kohn v. 2090144 Kohn, 52 A l a . App. (addressing agreement In husband's was informed 296 claim So. 2d that divorce supra, on action, 725 the i n e q u i t a b l e and s h o u l d Tidwell, parties' 636, parties' 1974 ) settlement be s e t a s i d e ) . the date set for t r i a l the p a r t i e s and their i n the attorneys t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t an o r a l s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t h a d been r e a c h e d and t h a t a w r i t t e n s e t t l e m e n t forwarded t o the court. parties' agreement, agreement. After received, and a g r e e m e n t w o u l d be 5 0 5 So. 2d a t 1237. a f i n a l h e a r i n g was s c h e d u l e d , entered ( C i v . App. A f t e r a date f o r t h e w i f e moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e t h e husband moved to enforce the evidence was I d . a t 1236. a hearing, the t r i a l into a at court valid which ore concluded separation tenus that the p a r t i e s had agreement and that the a g r e e m e n t h a d n o t b e e n o b t a i n e d b y f r a u d o r d u r e s s a n d was n o t unjust or u n f a i r . I d . Upon e n t r y o f a f i n a l d i v o r c e judgment i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement, t h e w i f e appealed. On a p p e a l , Id. the w i f e a s s e r t e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t a complete agreement e x i s t e d between t h e p a r t i e s , that t h e agreement was unenforceable 9 because i t had been 2090144 obtained by fraud unfair, unjust, or and duress, and unreasonable. that Id. the This agreement court was stated: "We n o t e t h a t an a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d i n s e t t l e m e n t o f l i t i g a t i o n i s as b i n d i n g upon t h e p a r t i e s as any other contract. P o r t e r v. P o r t e r , 441 So. 2d 921 (Ala. C i v . App. 1983). Furthermore, there i s a strong p o l i c y of law favoring compromises and settlements of litigation, especially in cases involving families. P o r t e r , supra. The f a c t t h a t the defendant attempted to r e p u d i a t e the s e t t l e m e n t p r i o r t o the s u b m i s s i o n of a w r i t t e n agreement t o the c o u r t f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o a judgment d i d not change the binding nature of the agreement. However, t h o u g h an a g r e e m e n t may be b i n d i n g upon t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e c a s e , i t i s n o t b i n d i n g upon t h e c o u r t , w h i c h may e x e r c i s e d i s c r e t i o n and a c c e p t or r e j e c t the agreement i n whole or i n p a r t . Porter, supra." 505 So. 2d at 1237. evidence presented the trial a binding court's and then considered This to the court trial then court found the sufficient f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had completed c o n t r a c t . the w i f e ' s the p a r t i e s ' c o n t r a c t . I d . a t 1238. ore to tenus support entered This into court defenses to the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of Id. "Alabama r e c o g n i z e s t h a t upon s h o w i n g o f d u r e s s o r undue influence a party may be relieved of contractual obligations. Head v. Gadsden C i v i l S e r v i c e B o a r d , 389 So. 2d 516 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . A c o n t r a c t may be r e s c i n d e d i f p r o c u r e d b e c a u s e o f f r a u d or mutual m i s t a k e of law. Thomas v. D a v i s , 241 A l a . 271, 2 So. 2d 616 (1941).... 10 2090144 "... Alabama law i s c l e a r t h a t a settlement a g r e e m e n t w h i c h i s g i v e n e f f e c t by a d i v o r c e d e c r e e must be f a i r , r e a s o n a b l e , and j u s t . C a r y v. C a r y , 257 A l a . 431, 59 So. 2d 659 (1952). It i s well w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o make t h i s determination, t h u s t h e q u e s t i o n becomes w h e t h e r t h e r e was enough e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at t r i a l to support the c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g . " Id. Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d to the trial court i n l i g h t of those p r i n c i p l e s , t h i s court concluded the t r i a l court's the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i v o r c e judgment. In E l l i o t t , Rule 60(b), f i n d i n g s were amply s u p p o r t e d supra, A l a . R. the w i f e C i v . P., a motion, pursuant to set aside judgment t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d the p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t 667 So. been 2d a t 117. obtained The wife under misrepresentation, and a l l e g e d t h a t the conditions to s e t a s i d e the This court judgment. recognized court i n determining concluded failing 118-19. of court denied The the to set aside In a d d r e s s i n g the divorce the w i f e ' s 11 had coercion, Id. After an motion Id. d i s c r e t i o n granted c o u r t had agreement. the w i f e ' s wife appealed. to divorce agreement w h e t h e r t o g r a n t a R u l e 60(b) t h a t the t r i a l a duress, d e c e i t by h e r h u s b a n d . e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , the t r i a l affirmed Id. filed seeking and that to a trial motion but exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n judgment a t i s s u e . c l a i m s , the court Id. at stated: 2090144 " ' " D u r e s s " has b e e n d e f i n e d as s u b j e c t i n g a p e r s o n t o i m p r o p e r p r e s s u r e w h i c h overcomes h i s w i l l and c o e r c e s h i m t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e demands t o w h i c h he w o u l d n o t y i e l d i f a c t i n g as a f r e e a g e n t , and i s a g r o u n d on w h i c h t o s u p p o r t a s e t t i n g a s i d e o f a d i v o r c e d e c r e e and u n d e r l y i n g a g r e e m e n t . ' Delchamps v. D e l c h a m p s , 449 So. 2d 1249 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).... " A d d i t i o n a l l y , a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d where t h e j u d g m e n t was obtained thro ugh ^ A ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ A ^ m i s r e p r e s^ e nAt a .tA-iA o n . 'T^A Ai ^s r e p r e s e nA t a.-I i o n ' i s ^ ^e Pf ! n e d M t d - -i as 'any m a n i f e s t a t i o n by w o r d s o r o t h e r c o n d u c t by one p e r s o n t o a n o t h e r t h a t , u n d e r t h e circumstances amounts t o an a s s e r t i o n n o t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e facts That which, i f accepted, l e a d s the mind to an apprehension of a condition other and d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which e x i s t s . ' Black's Law Dictionary, 1001 ( 6 t h ed. 1990); see Sims v. C a l l a h a n , 269 A l a . 216, 112 So. 2d 776 (1959); H e a l t h A m e r i c a v. M e n t o n , 551 So. 2d 235 (Ala. 1989) " " ' I f t h e a g r e e m e n t was o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h d u r e s s and f r a u d , t h e n t h e d i v o r c e i s v o i d . ' C a r e y v. C a r e y , 257 A l a . 431, 59 So. 2d 659 (1952).... "A separation agreement incorporated in a d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t must be f a i r , r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t , and f r e e f r o m f r a u d , d u r e s s , or other coercion. K u n k e l v. K u n k e l , 547 So. 2d 555 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 9 ) ; Delchamps v. D e l c h a m p s , 449 So. 2d 1249 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . " Id. at presented 118-19. by the This wife court concluded i n support amply e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t she had 12 of her that Rule the 60(b) evidence motion a c t e d under duress i n s i g n i n g 2090144 the agreement, t h a t t h e husband had m i s r e p r e s e n t e d of the agreement thereon, and t h e need t h e husband's of fraud, level that and t h a t a g r e e m e n t were w h o l l y concluded that the t r i a l the p r o v i s i o n s Id. rose to the set forth i n the As a r e s u l t , this court to s e t aside the divorce judgment. a t 119. In Kohn, supra, the wife grounds of p h y s i c a l c r u e l t y . a t 727. Simultaneously wife f i l e d filed f o r a divorce with the f i l i n g an a n s w e r a n d w a i v e r of her p e t i t i o n , the t h a t had been e x e c u t e d by t h e had b e e n e x e c u t e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s . the wife's and waiver; agreement. filing, on t h e 52 A l a . App. a t 638, 296 So. 2d husband and a s t i p u l a t e d p r o p e r t y - s e t t l e m e n t agreement that I d . W i t h i n a few d a y s o f t h e h u s b a n d moved t o w i t h d r a w t h e a n s w e r he a l s o moved t o s t r i k e the p r e v i o u s l y executed I d . The t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g , a t w h i c h o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e was r e c e i v e d , w i t h o u t the signature c o u r t had exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying the wife's request Id. f o r the wife's misrepresentation unjust. the purpose e n t e r i n g a r u l i n g on husband's m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w and motion t o s t r i k e . Id. A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a d i v o r c e judgment, as r e q u e s t e d by t h e w i f e ; t h a t d i v o r c e judgment 13 incorporated 2090144 the provisions of the p a r t i e s ' agreement, c o u r t h e l d t o be b i n d i n g and e n f o r c e a b l e . On appeal, this court So. 2d a t 729. supported trial court court's and r e v e r s e d i n 52 A l a . App. concluded findings that that a t 641, the evidence wife was e n t i t l e d t o a d i v o r c e on t h e g r o u n d o f p h y s i c a l c r u e l t y , that the the This court. trial Id. affirmed i n part p a r t t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l 296 which the the h u s b a n d h a d n o t b e e n u n d e r d u r e s s o r undue i n f l u e n c e a t t h e t i m e he h a d e x e c u t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t , and t h a t no f r a u d h a d been p e r p e t r a t e d upon t h e h u s b a n d i n o b t a i n i n g h i s s i g n a t u r e upon t h e a g r e e m e n t . This court, however, 52 A l a . App. a t 640, 296 So. 2d a t 728. concluded that have s t r u c k , o r s h o u l d have a l l o w e d the t r i a l court should the husband t o withdraw, the p r e v i o u s l y e x e c u t e d agreement because o f t h e i n e q u i t y o f its terms. court 52 A l a . App. a t 640, 296 So. 2d a t 728. stated: "As o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d i n W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 261 A l a . 328, 337, 74 So. 2d 582, 590 [ ( 1 9 5 4 ) ] , q u o t i n g f r o m R a s h v. B o g a r t , 226 A l a . 284, 287, 146 So. 814, 816 [ ( 1 9 3 3 ) ] , when r e f e r r i n g t o a p r o p e r t y agreement or s e p a r a t i o n agreement i n a divorce matter: "'Such a c o n t r a c t , s u p p o r t e d by a v a l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i s s u s t a i n e d i n e q u i t y as o t h e r c o n t r a c t s , s u b j e c t t o annulment or 14 This 2090144 c a n c e l l a t i o n f o r fraud, concealment, or other equity. (Citations omitted)' (Emphasis a d d e d [ i n Kohn ]) " H e r e , when two p a r t i e s have b e e n m a r r i e d o v e r t w e n t y y e a r s , w o r k e d s i d e by s i d e i n a c q u i r i n g a s i z a b l e e s t a t e , then agree to a d i v o r c e w i t h a p r o p e r t y agreement w h e r e i n the w i f e g e t s v i r t u a l l y e v e r y t h i n g and, t h e r e a f t e r , w i t h i n eighteen days a f t e r t h e documents a r e f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u r t b u t b e f o r e t h e y a r e a c t e d upon by t h e c o u r t , t h e h u s b a n d moves t o w i t h d r a w o r s t r i k e t h e d o c u m e n t s , i t i s e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e f u s e t o do so and f i n d t h e a g r e e m e n t v a l i d and b i n d i n g . Our r e a s o n f o r so h o l d i n g i s b a s e d upon t h e i n e q u i t y o f t h e agreement, i t s e l f . " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e can be no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t under the law i n Alabama, the t r i a l c o u r t i n making i t s d e c r e e i s n o t c o n t r o l l e d by t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , and i t may a d o p t o r r e j e c t s u c h p a r t s o f i t as seem p r o p e r f r o m t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s as shown by t h e e v i d e n c e on t h e t r i a l . " 52 A l a . App. presented trial a t 640, to the court had 296 trial So. court, erred in a g r e e m e n t t o be v a l i d and to 2d a t 729. this B a s e d on t h e court concluded that the parties' property finding b i n d i n g , and we remanded t h e the t r i a l c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to set a s i d e the stipulated property incorporating App. division and to a more e q u i t a b l e p r o p e r t y a t 640-41, 296 So. 2d a t 729-30. 15 evidence enter a division. the cause parties' judgment 52 Ala. 2090144 In this case, the petition for a divorce 2009, TRO m o t i o n , and repudiate the marriage instances their of J u l y 22, agreement, the however, and on submitted the 2009. wife I n h e r TRO the wife separation domestic agreement under d u r e s s , uncontested In her a g a i n i n h e r A u g u s t 28, s i g n e d the agreement. repudiate, husband a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she m o t i o n and alleged had violence, been that coercion, and alleged that she had marked had the parties' by repeated signed t h r e a t s , and attempted had i n her motion to that she 29, 2009, m o t i o n t o t e r m s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t were i n e q u i t a b l e and u n j u s t . further July to that the the The wife consult with 2 i n d e p e n d e n t l e g a l c o u n s e l r e g a r d i n g t h e documents b u t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d was i n c o n t r o l of a l l the m a r i t a l f u n d s and he had w i t h h e l d those funds from her, thereby r e n d e r i n g i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r her to r e t a i n independent l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n at the time the settlement B e c a u s e any motion to a g r e e m e n t was executed. o f t h e d e f e n s e s a s s e r t e d by repudiate, i f proven, would the w i f e void the in her parties' We do n o t i n t e n d an e x h a u s t i v e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n s e s raised in the wife's motion to repudiate the parties' a g r e e m e n t . To t h e e x t e n t t h e w i f e a s s e r t e d o t h e r d e f e n s e s a n d a r g u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f h e r m o t i o n , she i s f r e e t o p u r s u e s u c h d e f e n s e s a n d a r g u m e n t s on r e m a n d . 2 16 2090144 settlement the a g r e e m e n t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , w o u l d have trial court's provisions supra refusal contained (discussing inequity as settlement to adopt any i n t h a t agreement, duress, defenses to agreement see, or a l l of e.g., misrepresentation, the enforceability i n a divorce justified the Elliott, fraud, of and a stipulated a c t i o n ) , the trial court s h o u l d have c o n d u c t e d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h a t m o t i o n t o determine the v a l i d i t y of the w i f e ' s a l l e g a t i o n s . See, e.g., Allen, set aside supra settlement (after husband agreement, evidentiary hearing trial to filed court motion to scheduled and conducted validity of husband's determine d e f e n s e s t o e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f t h a t a g r e e m e n t ) ; and Kohn, supra (accord). I n s t e a d , the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment of d i v o r c e i n which without in i t incorporated parties' settlement a l l o w i n g t h e w i f e an o p p o r t u n i t y support of her defenses s e t t l e m e n t agreement. wife's the Rule 59(e) to the to present i n which evidence enforceability The t r i a l c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y motion, agreement she pointed of her pending motion 17 to repudiate the denied out t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t had b e e n e n t e r e d consideration of and to the the without that, 2090144 instead, in entering s t a t e m e n t s made by repudiate. evidence settlement court See the Kohn, established judgment wife the court had relied on she filed her motion to before supra ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t , because the terms of parties' a g r e e m e n t were i n e q u i t a b l e and should stipulated the have g r a n t e d settlement (reversing t r i a l agreement); trial Elliott, t h e r e i n because evidence we in conclude failing that to the grant supported trial the aside agreement t h a t defenses t o the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of t h a t s e t t l e m e n t Accordingly, his supra c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of w i f e ' s motion to set been i n c o r p o r a t e d discretion the to withdraw and d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and s t i p u l a t e d s e t t l e m e n t its stipulated unjust, husband's motion the had wife's agreement). court wife's exceeded Rule 59(e) m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t so t h a t the wife's defenses to the enforceability of the settlement a g r e e m e n t c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . We, therefore, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and the reverse the t r i a l cause f o r f u r t h e r proceedings consistent with this remand opinion. 3 I n l i g h t o f o u r r e s o l u t i o n , we p r e t e r m i t a d i s c u s s i o n o f the other i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the w i f e ' s appeal. 3 18 2090144 We p o i n t o u t t h a t , on remand, e v e n i f t h e w i f e ' s fails to establish a defense sufficient to enforcement o f t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement, t h e t r i a l bound by t h e p r o v i s i o n s s e t f o r t h must i n d e p e n d e n t l y therein. evidence defeat the court i s not The t r i a l court determine whether t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t a g r e e m e n t c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 32, A l a . R. J u d . A d m i n . , o r w h e t h e r a d e v i a t i o n therefrom is justified, of are the agreement circumstances. supra; So. just See W i l c o x e n , a n d Kohn, s u p r a . and whether t h e p r o v i s i o n s and equitable under supra; Morrison, supra; See a l s o W i l k e r s o n Elliott, v. W i l k e r s o n , 719 2d 235 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) (upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w i f e ' s motion t o s e t aside s t i p u l a t e d divorce agreement, t h e t r i a l court d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o adopt a g r e e m e n t when t h e a g r e e m e n t d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h R u l e Ala. the R. agreement J u d . Admin, was and t h e t r i a l inequitable i n other court found respects); that 32(A), that the and Rule 3 2 ( A ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. J u d . Admin. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 19 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.