In Re the Marriage of Baltins
212 Cal. App. 3d 66, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 733, 260 Cal. Rptr. 403 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marital dissolution judgment may be set aside on grounds of duress and extrinsic fraud where one spouse's course of coercive conduct, including threats, misrepresentations, and active interference with the other's access to legal counsel, prevents a fair adversary hearing and results in a grossly inequitable agreement.
Facts:
- Aldis Baltins (Husband), an orthopedic surgeon, and Deanna Baltins (Wife), a former secretary, separated in January 1982 after 12 years of marriage.
- After separating, Husband became furious with Wife's attorney, Scott Gaustad, for mentioning her bruises to another attorney; Husband threatened to sue Gaustad and demanded Wife fire him, which she did.
- In April 1982, while unrepresented, Wife signed a handwritten marital settlement agreement drafted by Husband after he threatened bankruptcy and told her she was not entitled to half the community property or his medical practice.
- The agreement awarded Wife assets with a net value of approximately $63,000, while Husband received assets, including his medical practice and a ranch, with a net value of approximately $507,700.
- Wife consulted a second attorney, Susan Jordan, who found the agreement unfair but withdrew because Wife, fearing Husband's anger, would not permit her to engage in discovery or contact Husband.
- Wife consulted a third attorney, Pano Stephens, but Husband called Stephens, claimed a conflict of interest, and Stephens subsequently declined to represent Wife in an adversarial capacity.
- In December 1982, while unrepresented and emotionally distraught, Wife signed a typed marital settlement agreement prepared by Husband which was substantially the same as the previous unfair agreements.
- Witnesses, including friends and her former attorneys, described Wife during this period as emotionally unable to fight, terrified of Husband, depressed, and crying nearly every day.
Procedural Posture:
- Deanna Baltins (Wife), represented by counsel, initially filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
- Wife subsequently discharged her attorney and voluntarily dismissed the action.
- Aldis Baltins (Husband), representing himself, filed a new petition for dissolution.
- Wife, without legal counsel, signed an appearance, stipulation, and waivers form allowing the matter to proceed as an uncontested default.
- The trial court entered an interlocutory judgment of dissolution by default, incorporating the marital settlement agreement.
- Six months later, the court entered the final judgment of dissolution at Husband's request.
- Wife filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the property and support provisions of the interlocutory and final judgments.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Wife's motion, setting aside the judgments.
- Husband appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District.
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 spouse's conduct, including making threats, misrepresentations, and actively interfering with the other spouse's attempts to obtain legal counsel, constitute duress and extrinsic fraud sufficient to set aside a marital dissolution judgment that incorporates a grossly inequitable property settlement?
Opinions:
Majority - Barry-Deal, J.
Yes. A spouse's coercive conduct that prevents the other spouse from having a fair adversary hearing constitutes duress and extrinsic fraud sufficient to set aside a final judgment. The court found that Husband's conduct met the modern definition of duress, which includes any mental coercion that destroys a person's free will. This was evidenced by his threats of bankruptcy, his misrepresentations about Wife's property rights, his active interference with her attempts to secure legal counsel, and her resulting weakened emotional state. This coercion led Wife to sign a grossly unconscionable agreement, receiving only 10-15% of the community assets. This conduct also constituted extrinsic fraud, as it deprived Wife of the opportunity to present her case and participate fully in the proceeding. The court balanced the policy favoring finality of judgments against the need for a fair hearing, concluding that where a default judgment is procured by such egregious conduct, equity demands that the judgment be set aside.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of duress and extrinsic fraud in family law, moving toward a more modern, subjective standard for duress that includes psychological coercion. It establishes that one spouse's active interference with the other's ability to obtain independent legal counsel is a powerful factor in finding extrinsic fraud, which can overcome the strong policy favoring the finality of judgments. The decision signals to lower courts that they should closely scrutinize marital settlement agreements incorporated into default judgments for both procedural and substantive fairness, particularly where one party was unrepresented and in a vulnerable state. This precedent provides a crucial equitable remedy for spouses who are coerced into grossly unfair settlements without the benefit of a truly adversarial process.
Unlock the full brief for In Re the Marriage of Baltins