Tracy v. Tracy
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2737, 213 Cal. App. 2d 359, 28 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When spouses in a divorce proceeding are represented by independent counsel and dealing at arm's length, the fiduciary duty of full disclosure is diminished, and a party may not set aside a stipulated property settlement based on the omission of an asset if they knew or could have discovered its existence with reasonable diligence.
Facts:
- Plaintiff wife and defendant husband were parties to a divorce proceeding.
- Defendant was a school teacher who had regular contributions deducted from his salary and placed into the California State Teacher's Retirement System.
- Defendant had previously discussed these retirement contributions with plaintiff.
- Information about the retirement fund contributions was accessible to the plaintiff via defendant's salary warrant stubs.
- Both parties were represented by independent legal counsel during the divorce.
- The parties negotiated and entered into a stipulated property settlement agreement which did not explicitly list the husband's retirement contributions.
- In open court, plaintiff affirmed that the stipulated agreement was satisfactory to her.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff wife filed an action for divorce in the trial court.
- Defendant husband filed a cross-complaint for divorce.
- At trial, the parties entered a stipulation regarding the division of property, and the court entered an interlocutory decree of divorce incorporating the agreement.
- Plaintiff substituted her attorney and filed a motion for a new trial to vacate the judgment.
- The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the denial of the motion to the intermediate appellate court.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial where a spouse, after consenting to a stipulated property settlement, seeks to set it aside based on the omission of a community asset whose existence was known or readily discoverable to that spouse and their counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, P. J.
No. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial. A judgment will not be disturbed on appeal by a party who consented to it through a stipulation. While spouses normally owe each other the highest duty of good faith, that duty is altered when the parties are in litigation, represented by counsel, and dealing at arm's length. Under such circumstances, a spouse is not obligated to disclose information about assets that the other spouse already knows about or could have discovered through reasonable diligence. The plaintiff's decision to accept the settlement, made with the advice of counsel, is binding. Furthermore, to grant a new trial for newly discovered evidence, the evidence must be such that it could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence and would likely produce a different result on retrial, neither of which is true here.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of fiduciary duties between spouses during an adversarial divorce proceeding. It establishes that once parties are represented by counsel and negotiating at arm's length, the duty of disclosure is not absolute; a burden of due diligence is placed on each party to conduct their own investigation into community assets. The ruling reinforces the finality of stipulated judgments, making them difficult to overturn on grounds of omitted assets when the information was reasonably accessible. It signals to divorce litigants that they cannot rely on their spouse to marshal all assets for them once the relationship has become adversarial.
Unlock the full brief for Tracy v. Tracy