Illinois law invalidating a settlement agreement Free teen sexting chat sites
Many a spouse winds up feeling cheated after the dust settles which was raised by the marriage dissolution proceedings. E.2d 867 (1981) (no relief for a "misunderstanding of the facts"; instead, evidence to support a petition based on fraud must establish that husband made the representation knowing it was false); Davidson v. Another approach would be to characterize any misrepresentation or omission as a mistake or oversight made without intent to deceive. Extrinsic fraud is usually characterized as fraud on the court, while intrinsic fraud is the less serious evil of fraud committed against a party. ___, 862 P.2d 1128 (1993) (failure to disclose pension to the trial court did not rise to the level of extrinsic fraud upon the court, where wife herself knew about pension and was represented by counsel); Lee v. The court adopted a broader definition of fraud on the court: an intentional course of material misrepresentation that misled the court and counsel and made the property settlement grossly unfair. In particular, the economically dependent spouse may begin to question whether the settlement was a good one and whether the other spouse may have held back vital information about the existence or value of marital assets. 761, 627 A.2d 452 (1993) (fraud not proven; husband claimed wife falsely portrayed her financial status by omitting an expected settlement award, but at the time of dissolution wife was not aware that she would receive any additional payments); In re Marriage of Mc Bride , 102 Ill. In most cases, the concealment or misrepresentation is not discovered within a short time, and thus the spouse seeking to set aside a property needs to prove extrinsic fraud. E.2d 126 (1986) (property division provisions of decree should be vacated for fraud, where husband had represented that he only had a small amount of cash and did not disclose that he had an ,000 savings account, as well as an interest in a substantial checking account with his business partner). For example, Indiana's high court held that spouses do not have a duty to make a spontaneous disclosure about the value of marital assets. But it did add a caveat: a duty to disclose asset value information may arise from unique factual circumstances, such as a discovery request for such information or an express provision in the parties' settlement agreement. 1984) (husband's alleged misrepresentations about his net worth in a financial affidavit could not be characterized as extrinsic fraud); Bodine v. But substantial authority supports the opposite view that is, that misrepresentation of property values amounts to fraud so as to support an attack on the judgment. The proof demonstrated intrinsic fraud, the court decided, observing that the wife did not have to base her claim on extrinsic fraud since she had filed her motion within one year of entry of the dissolution judgment. The court explained that the doctrine that equity will not aid the negligent does not apply when the fraud consists of a positive representation intended to induce the allegedly negligent conduct which then results. 1993) Some courts have analyzed the reliance issue in terms of whether the particular spouses still had a confidential or fiduciary relationship at the time of the alleged misrepresentations.
516, 632 P.2d 35 (1981) (insufficient evidence that husband actually knew of possible zoning change and its potential effect on the value of the marital home at the time of the dissolution proceedings). But most states have a longer time limit, or no time limit at all, for attacks grounded on extrinsic fraud . But Minnesota's high court said that such a narrow definition is inappropriate in marriage dissolution cases because of the trial court's unique role in such cases, where the trial court sits as a third party on behalf of the state to see that a fair distribution is made.
Some 14 months later, after a lengthy and largely unsuccessful discovery period, the wife sought and was granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the husband from dissipating his pension.