Long v. Long
413 P.3d 117 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A stipulated divorce decree signed by parties after separation but before a formal complaint is filed is an enforceable contract when the consideration is the settlement of their marital claims. Such an agreement will not be found unconscionable unless it is both substantively unfair and the product of procedural unfairness, such as the lack of a meaningful choice.
Facts:
- Husband and Wife married in 1993 and had four children; Wife was primarily a homemaker while Husband was a high-earning tool fisher.
- The couple began having marital difficulties in August 2014, and Husband moved out of the marital home in April 2015.
- While separated, Husband, who wished to reconcile, sent Wife text messages telling her to have a lawyer draft divorce papers with whatever terms she wanted, including alimony, and he would sign them.
- On August 7, 2015, Wife presented Husband with a stipulated decree prepared by her attorney, which awarded her sole custody, significant child support and alimony, the marital home, and 100% of Husband's 401(k).
- Husband, who has dyslexia, did not read the document himself but had Wife explain its contents to him.
- Husband signed the stipulated decree before a notary on the same day it was presented, believing that doing so might lead to a reconciliation with Wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Satin Marie Long (Wife) filed a complaint for divorce against Clayton Eugene Long (Husband) in Wyoming district court.
- Wife submitted a previously signed 'Stipulated Judgment and Decree of Divorce' to the court for approval.
- Husband filed an answer, counterclaim, and an objection to the entry of the stipulated decree, arguing it was unenforceable due to lack of consideration, unconscionability, coercion, and his incompetence at the time of signing.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
- The district court found the stipulated decree to be a valid and enforceable contract and entered it as the final divorce decree, with some modification to the child support amount.
- Husband (Appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 stipulated divorce decree an enforceable contract when it was signed after the parties separated but before a divorce complaint was filed, and the terms heavily favor one party who drafted the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Kautz, Justice
Yes, the stipulated divorce decree is an enforceable contract regarding the division of property, debt, and alimony. A settlement agreement entered into by parties after separation but in anticipation of divorce is supported by adequate consideration, which is the mutual settlement of all potential marital claims between them. The fact that a formal divorce complaint had not yet been filed does not invalidate this consideration. Furthermore, while the agreement's terms were substantively unconscionable in that they unreasonably favored the Wife, the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable because the Husband was not deprived of a meaningful choice. He had previously instructed his Wife to draft the terms as she saw fit, had the opportunity to review the document and seek legal counsel (and was advised to do so by his own counselor), and was not deceived about the document's contents, even if he made an unwise bargain in the hope of reconciliation. However, the case is remanded for the district court to make specific findings regarding the best interests of the children for custody and to create a statutorily compliant visitation schedule and child support order.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that courts strongly favor settlement agreements in domestic relations cases, even those that appear highly one-sided. It clarifies that the settlement of potential legal claims between separating spouses is sufficient consideration to form a binding contract, even before a lawsuit is formally filed. The case sets a high bar for proving procedural unconscionability, establishing that a party's failure to read an agreement, their decision to forgo legal advice, or their holding onto a unilateral hope for reconciliation does not constitute a lack of meaningful choice sufficient to void the contract. This precedent underscores the finality of such agreements and limits the ability of a party to escape a 'bad bargain' based on regret or poor judgment.
