Adams v. Adams
503 So. 2d 1052 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A community property settlement contract is not invalid for lack of consent where one party's agreement was motivated by the other's threat to take a lawful action, such as filing for bankruptcy. Furthermore, a spouse's waiver of alimony pendente lite is enforceable when the contract provides specific, bargained-for consideration in lieu of that support.
Facts:
- William and Lilly Adams decided to separate and sought legal advice from William's brother, Calvin Adams, an attorney.
- Lilly Adams was advised to get her own attorney but declined, trusting Calvin Adams and worrying about legal fees.
- William Adams told Lilly that if she did not accept the proposed property settlement and waive alimony, he would declare bankruptcy, leaving her responsible for half of the community's $349,678.99 debt.
- Lilly Adams testified that William Adams cursed at her and sometimes shook her, though not necessarily in connection with the settlement contract.
- On September 24, 1985, Lilly signed the community property settlement, which gave her assets valued at approximately $10,000 more than her fifty percent share, while William received all community real estate and assumed all community debts.
- The contract purported to settle the division of all community property.
- After signing, the parties discovered they jointly owned a piece of real estate, the 'Gin Lot,' which neither was aware of during the negotiations.
- It was also discovered that an exhibit describing the real estate to be transferred to William was inadvertently omitted from the filed version of the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- A judgment of separation from bed and board was rendered on September 19, 1985.
- William R. Adams sued Lilly J. Adams in trial court to compel her to sign an amendment to their community property settlement.
- William Adams amended his petition to include a newly discovered property, the 'Gin Lot'.
- Lilly Adams filed an answer requesting the contract be set aside and seeking alimony pendente lite.
- The trial court found the contract valid, ordered it amended to include all disputed real estate (including the 'Gin Lot'), and awarded Lilly Adams $600 per month in alimony pendente lite.
- Lilly Adams (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision upholding the contract and including the properties.
- William Adams (appellee) answered the appeal, challenging the award of alimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a community property settlement contract, which includes a waiver of alimony pendente lite, invalid for lack of consent due to error, fraud, or duress where one spouse felt pressured by threats of bankruptcy and where the parties were mutually unaware of a community asset at the time of signing?
Opinions:
Majority - Lindsay, Judge
No, the community property settlement contract is valid and the alimony waiver is enforceable. The court held that consent was not vitiated by error, fraud, or duress. The mutual error regarding the unknown 'Gin Lot' did not invalidate the contract's cause, which was to divide the known assets. There was no fraud, as the threat of bankruptcy was a plausible lawful action given the community's financial state, not a misrepresentation. Similarly, the threat of a lawful act does not constitute duress, and the general emotional strain of a separation or unproven connections between physical acts and the signing of the contract do not rise to the level of legal duress. The court further held that the waiver of alimony pendente lite was valid because, under the precedent of Fontenot v. Klumpp, it was supported by consideration; Lilly Adams received approximately $10,000 in assets beyond her equal share of the community, which the contract explicitly identified as a lump sum payment in lieu of alimony. However, the trial court erred in adding the 'Gin Lot' to the settlement, as there was no intent by the parties to convey an unknown and undescribed asset; it thus remains owned in indivision.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold required to invalidate a contract on grounds of duress in the context of divorce settlements, establishing that threats of lawful actions, like filing for bankruptcy, do not constitute vitiating duress. It significantly reinforces the principle that a waiver of alimony can be valid and enforceable, provided the agreement clearly demonstrates that specific consideration was given in exchange for the waiver. This creates a clear framework for parties wishing to create final, comprehensive settlements, but also places a heavy burden on a party who later seeks to challenge such an agreement, requiring them to prove more than just emotional pressure or threats of undesirable but legal outcomes.
