In Re Marriage of Kieturakis
138 Cal. App. 4th 56, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption of undue influence, which normally applies to interspousal transactions that advantage one spouse, does not apply to marital settlement agreements reached through mediation. The strong public policies favoring the confidentiality of mediation and the finality of judgments override the presumption.
Facts:
- Anna Kieturakis and Maciej Jan Kieturakis married in 1984.
- Maciej, a surgeon and inventor, derived significant royalty income from a surgical device he created.
- After Anna retained an attorney for their divorce, she alleged Maciej reacted with anger and threats, leading her to agree to mediate the settlement without legal representation.
- The parties participated in mediation with mediator Anne Lober and hired an appraiser, J. Nicholas Tollemache, to value their assets, including the future royalty income which was deemed speculative.
- On June 23, 1999, the parties signed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that awarded Maciej all interest in the intellectual property for his surgical device and set a termination date for Anna's spousal support.
- The MSA contained a clause where both parties affirmed the agreement was entered into voluntarily, free from duress, fraud, or undue influence.
- After the MSA was finalized, Maciej's royalty income increased substantially.
Procedural Posture:
- Anna Kieturakis (Anna) filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Maciej Jan Kieturakis (Maciej) in October 1998.
- A judgment of dissolution, incorporating the parties' mediated Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), was entered in the trial court on July 23, 1999.
- On June 26, 2001, Anna filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the judgment and MSA, alleging duress, fraud, and lack of disclosure.
- The trial court found the MSA was unequal, which triggered a presumption of undue influence and placed the burden of proof on Maciej to show the agreement was valid.
- Over Anna's objection based on mediation confidentiality, the trial court admitted evidence from the mediation, including the mediator's testimony.
- The trial court found that Maciej had successfully rebutted the presumption of undue influence and denied Anna's motion to set aside the judgment.
- Anna appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
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 the presumption of undue influence apply to a marital settlement agreement reached through mediation when a party later seeks to set aside the agreement and the judgment incorporating it?
Opinions:
Majority - Reardon, Acting P. J.
No, the presumption of undue influence does not apply to a marital settlement agreement reached through mediation. For three independently sufficient reasons, the party challenging a mediated MSA bears the burden of proof. First, applying the presumption would undermine the strong public policy favoring mediation; a party could use the shield of mediation confidentiality as a sword to invalidate any unequal agreement by preventing the other party from presenting evidence to defend it. Second, the strong public policy favoring the finality of judgments requires that the moving party bear the burden of proof when challenging a judgment that has long been final. Third, the parties' explicit acknowledgment in the MSA that the agreement was free from undue influence serves as evidence to negate the presumption from the outset, placing the burden of proof on the party claiming otherwise.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the application of the presumption of undue influence in family law, elevating the statutory policies of mediation confidentiality and finality of judgments over the fiduciary protections typically afforded to spouses in transactions. It makes mediated settlement agreements substantially more difficult to overturn on grounds of duress or fraud, as the challenging party cannot rely on the agreement's inequality to shift the burden of proof. The ruling strengthens the enforceability of mediated agreements, providing greater certainty for parties who choose mediation to resolve their disputes and reinforcing the integrity of the mediation process itself.
