Sims v. Sims
685 S.E.2d 869, 55 Va. App. 340, 2009 Va. App. LEXIS 552 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marital property settlement agreement is unconscionable and must be set aside if there is a gross disparity in the division of assets combined with evidence of pecuniary necessities and infirmity on the part of the disadvantaged spouse, even in the absence of overt overreaching.
Facts:
- Barbara J. Sims and Marvin Junior Sims were married in 1968 and separated on August 11, 2006, after 38 years of marriage.
- Barbara initially consulted an attorney who requested financial information from Marvin, which Marvin's attorney provided, including details on Marvin's deferred profit sharing and retirement benefits.
- Barbara, unable to afford her attorney, proceeded without legal representation for several months and told Marvin she wanted half of everything, but Marvin did not want to sell the marital residence where he was living with their grandson.
- Marvin's attorney prepared a first property settlement agreement, which Barbara refused to sign because it did not provide for the division of Marvin's retirement and deferred compensation.
- Later, Barbara told several people, including Marvin's attorney and the parties’ son, that she no longer wanted anything from the marriage and just wanted a divorce quickly.
- In March 2007, Marvin's attorney prepared a second property settlement agreement, which Barbara signed on March 12, 2007, at the attorney’s office after being asked if she understood it.
- The second agreement waived spousal support and equitable distribution for both parties; Marvin received the marital residence (valued at $300,000 with $100,000 debt), his deferred profit-sharing account (approximately $128,000), and retirement benefits (approximately $2,400 per month), while Barbara received only a 1999 pickup truck and 'yard sale' personal property, with Marvin agreeing to hold her harmless on the marital residence debt.
- At the time, Barbara, who had a third-grade education, was 56 years old, 'totally disabled' from numerous health conditions (including depression, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and multiple joint replacements), took several pain medications including morphine, did not receive disability, could not qualify for Medicaid, and was receiving food stamps and borrowing money from family/friends.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 11, 2007, Barbara J. Sims (wife) signed a waiver of service for divorce proceedings.
- On May 9, 2007, Barbara J. Sims retained counsel and filed an answer and cross-bill in the Circuit Court of Hanover County (the trial court/court of first instance), alleging the property settlement agreement was unconscionable.
- On April 17, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on the unconscionability issue and initially ruled that the agreement was unconscionable, relying on O’Bryan v. O’Bryan.
- Marvin Junior Sims (husband) filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court.
- The trial court granted Marvin Junior Sims's motion for reconsideration and subsequently concluded that the agreement was valid and not unconscionable, finding that Barbara J. Sims had proven only a gross disparity but failed to prove overreaching or oppressive behavior, citing Galloway v. Galloway.
- Barbara J. Sims filed a motion asking the trial court to retain jurisdiction to divide property omitted from the agreement.
- Marvin Junior Sims sought entry of a final decree incorporating the agreement.
- On December 5, 2008, the trial court entered the final decree incorporating the agreement and denied Barbara J. Sims’s motion to retain jurisdiction.
- Barbara J. Sims then appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by finding that the property settlement agreement between Barbara J. Sims and Marvin Junior Sims was not unconscionable, given the extreme disparity in asset division and Barbara J. Sims's demonstrable pecuniary necessities and infirmity?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Larry G. Elder
Yes, the trial court erred by finding that the property settlement agreement was not unconscionable; the agreement was unconscionable and must be set aside. The Court recognized that while marital agreements carry a prima facie presumption of validity (Code § 20-151(B)), the party alleging unconscionability must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. The standard test for unconscionability requires proving (1) a gross disparity in asset division and (2) overreaching or oppressive influences. However, the Court clarified that when the gross disparity in value exchanged is so extreme as to prove 'pecuniary necessities' on the part of the disadvantaged spouse, it is sufficient to establish both prongs of the unconscionability test. The Court emphasized that marital agreements require greater scrutiny than commercial contracts due to the unique relationship and the state's interest in preventing a spouse from becoming a public charge. In this case, the undisputed facts established an extreme gross disparity where Marvin received nearly 100% of the marital assets, leaving Barbara penniless. Coupled with Barbara's third-grade education, severe and numerous health conditions (rendering her 'totally disabled'), her receipt of food stamps, and inability to qualify for Medicaid, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated her 'pecuniary necessities' and infirmity. This stands in stark contrast to the facts in Galloway, where the disadvantaged spouse, despite receiving a small percentage of assets, was employed, had job skills, and significant inherited wealth. Therefore, even without direct evidence of overt oppressive conduct by Marvin, the combination of the extreme disparity and Barbara's profound financial and physical incapacities rendered the agreement unconscionable as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for unconscionability of marital agreements in Virginia, particularly in situations involving extreme asset disparity and a disadvantaged spouse's severe pecuniary needs and infirmity. It establishes that such extreme disparity, when it results in one spouse being left in necessitous circumstances and potentially a public charge, can satisfy both prongs of the unconscionability test without requiring separate proof of overt overreaching. The decision reinforces the court's role in scrutinizing marital agreements beyond typical contract principles, acknowledging the unique vulnerabilities inherent in spousal relationships and the state's interest in preventing destitution. It provides crucial guidance for future cases where an agreement's terms, though perhaps 'voluntarily' signed, have a profoundly inequitable impact on one party's ability to sustain themselves.
