Collins v. Collins

California Supreme Court
309 P.2d 420, 1957 Cal. LEXIS 185, 48 Cal.2d 325 (1957)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When spouses are negotiating a property settlement in contemplation of divorce, are represented by independent counsel, and are dealing at arm's length, the fiduciary duty of full disclosure that applies to a confidential marital relationship is terminated. A spouse is not liable for a breach of this duty if the other spouse had the opportunity to investigate the marital assets but chose not to.

Facts:

In December 1952, the plaintiff wife informed the defendant husband that she wanted a divorce in order to marry another man, Mr. Blankenship.
In June 1953, the plaintiff moved to Nevada to obtain a divorce and hired her own attorney to represent her in the divorce and property settlement.
The plaintiff's attorney contacted the defendant to prepare a property settlement agreement and began an investigation into the couple's community property.
The plaintiff chose not to pursue the investigation fully because she was satisfied with the proposed agreement and wanted to finalize the divorce quickly.
On August 13, 1953, the plaintiff and defendant executed the property settlement agreement and related deeds. The agreement included a clause where the plaintiff waived the necessity of the defendant specifically listing all properties in his name.
On August 17, 1953, the plaintiff obtained a default divorce decree in Nevada, which incorporated the property settlement agreement.
On the same day her divorce was granted, the plaintiff married Mr. Blankenship.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff wife filed an action in the trial court against her former husband, the defendant.
The lawsuit sought to set aside a property settlement agreement and deeds executed pursuant to it.
The trial court found in favor of the defendant, entering a judgment against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a husband breach his fiduciary duty by failing to fully disclose the value of all community assets during property settlement negotiations when his wife is represented by independent counsel, their interests are adverse, and she has the opportunity to investigate but chooses not to in her desire for an expedited divorce?

Opinions:

Majority - Schauer, J.

No. The husband did not breach a fiduciary duty because the confidential relationship between the spouses had terminated, and they were dealing at arm's length. When parties to a marriage are negotiating a property settlement with the recognition that their interests are adverse and each has independent counsel, neither spouse owes the other the high duty of disclosure required in a confidential marital relationship. The husband was entitled to take a position favorable to his own interests, and the wife, represented by counsel, had a duty to investigate the facts if she was not satisfied. Here, the plaintiff had ample opportunity to investigate but chose not to because she was eager to finalize the divorce and remarry. The defendant did nothing to hinder her investigation, and her decision not to pursue it is not chargeable to him.

Analysis:

This case clarifies that the heightened fiduciary duty between spouses is significantly diminished once they become adversaries in a divorce proceeding and are represented by separate counsel. It establishes that parties dealing at 'arm's length' cannot later rescind a settlement by claiming a breach of the confidential duty of disclosure, particularly when they had the opportunity for due diligence. This precedent strengthens the finality of property settlement agreements, preventing a party from using a claim of non-disclosure to undo a deal they later regret, especially when their own haste contributed to the lack of a full investigation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Collins v. Collins (1957)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature