An Involuntarily Psychiatric Commitment, Medication Control, and a Postnuptial Agreement.
/A recent PA Superior Court Case provides guidance on the analysis of duress claims to invalidate marital settlement agreements.
Photo by PeopleImages/iStock / Getty Images
In recent a PA Superior Case, Lewis v. Lewis, (Pa. Super. 2020), a case with interesting facts provided additional insight in the analysis of duress with respect to marital agreements. In this case, Husband petitioned the court to enforce the post-nuptial settlement agreement and for Wife’s contempt of that settlement agreement. Wife filed a counter-petition complaining that she signed the settlement agreement under duress due to “constant fear of Husband’s punishing retribution, in a daze from his manipulation of her medication and without opportunity to consult an attorney.” She also alleged fraud, claiming that Husband told her that the document was needed for his job and not a settlement of the marital property.
THE BACKGROUND
Husband (46) and Wife (20) met in 2013 when he hired her to care for his two young children. They married after three weeks. Wife dropped out of college and became a stay home mother to Husband’s two children. Within a year, the couple had their own child. There were numerous legal filings including a June 2016 Protection From Abuse (PFA) order granted in favor of Husband against Wife. Husband also claimed she violated the Order. There were criminal charges, Wife was found in contempt, and she ended up incarcerated.
The couple’s story takes a turn during a July 2018 PFA hearing where there was evidence that Husband was actual perpetrator of the abuse. According the Opinion, Husband used his June 2016 PFA order “as a weapon against wife.” He would invite her back into the marital home and file contempt charges against her. The trial court found that “Husband had been playing the system, using the Monroe Court of Common Pleas as one tool in furtherance of his very calculated, complex, web of domestic violence, control and intimidation against Wife.” (See Trial Court Opinion). Wife was granted the PFA and was awarded exclusive possession of the marital residence and temporary sole custody of their child together. Husband appealed the decision, and the court affirmed.
According to the opinion, in December 2016, following “Husband’s extensive abuse, including his manipulation of Wife’s mental health and medication, Wife’s attempted suicide.” Husband brought up the idea of Wife signing a settlement agreement, which he assured her was simply a paper trail for his job with the federal government. Wife was released from the hospital in December 2016 but continued to have difficult with her mental and physical state. Husband continues to disperse her medication which made her feel nauseous and apathetic. Twice in January of 2017, Wife met with her psychiatrist to change her medication. Husband forced his attendance at these appointments.
According to Wife, on the day of the last appointment, January 13, 2017, Husband presented her with a post-nuptial agreement in the car after the appointment and allowed her ten minutes to review it as he drove her to a notary public. He again told her that it was only a paper trail for work and they would not get a divorce. Wife said she was uncomfortable and did not want to sign anything without consulting an attorney, Husband stated, “If you dare get a lawyer, I’m divorcing you and you will never see your daughter again.” Wife said she believed him due to his past infliction of punishments on her when he disobeyed her. Wife signed and Husband waited in the car while she went into the notary’s office. After that, Husband drove to his lawyer’s office, entered alone and had his signature notarized. Husband then refused to give Wife a copy of the signed agreement.
Once Wife received the PFA granting her exclusive possession of the marital residence, Husband filed a petition to enforce the agreement, asserting his right to exclusive possession of the marital home and that Wife was in contempt of that agreement. Wife countered challenging the validity of the agreement on the grounds of duress and fraud in the inducement. The trial court issued an order invalidating the settlement agreement on the grounds of duress and fraud and dismissed Husband’s petition as moot.
THE DEFINITION OF DURESS
Settlement agreements are guided by contract laws. Fraud, misrepresentation, or duress are the reasons that an agreement may be invalidated. Because contracts require mutual assent to enter into a contract, it cannot exist where there was duress. The burden is upon the party trying to invalidate the agreement to show by clear and convincing evidence to avoid or nullify it.
The PA Supreme Court has defined duress as follows: “that degree of restraint or danger, either actually inflicted or threatened and impending, which is sufficient in severity or apprehension to overcome the mind of a person of ordinary firmness. The quality of firmness is assumed to exist in every person competent to contract, unless it appears by reason of old age or other sufficient cause he is weak or infirm. Where persons deal with each other on equal terms and at arm’s length, there is a presumption that the person alleging duress possesses ordinary firmness. Moreover, in the absence of threats of actual bodily harm, there can be no duress where the contracting party is free to consult with counsel.” Carrier v. William Penn Broadcasting Co., 233 A.2d 519, 521 (Pa. 1967).
According to the opinion, in their “review of the relevant Pennsylvania case law, no spouse has ever convinced a court to void a settlement agreement on grounds of duress.” (pg. 14). The Court acknowledges that in many cases, a party may have faced unseemly pressures to sign an agreement, but the court concluded that they did not amount to duress in the legal sense. In one case, Simeone v. Simeone, Wife alleged she was forced to sign a prenuptial agreement on the eve of her wedding, and that she could not seek counsel without the trauma, expense, and embarrassment of postponing the wedding. In another case, Adams v. Adams, wife alleged that she had low self-esteem, an abusive husband, fear of the judicial system, and received treatment for ADD and alcoholism. The trial court and Superior Court affirmed the trial court.
We can break down the duress analysis into three parts.
Duress or restraint
Whether a person of ordinary firmness could overcome the aforementioned degree of restraint and danger.
Is the party free to consult with counsel?
The court found that because of Husband’s actions in the past including making her sleep outside in the past, making threats and then making good on those threats, there was duress. Husband’s specific threat to Wife about not seeing her child while inside of the car on the way to notary was a specific threat. The court also notes how Husband had exploited the court system. And while the there was no “actually inflicted” physical abuse in the car, Wife convinced the court that the restraint on her will was “threatened” and the danger to her person was “impending.”
The second part of the analysis concerns whether the restraint or danger was severe enough to overcome the mind of a person of ordinary firmness. The trial court found that Wife did not possess the “ordinary firmness” on account of husband’s control over Wife through intense and sustained domestic abuse, Wife’s attempted suicide in close proximity to the execution of the settlement agreement, and Wife’s heavy medication.
The Court examines whether the test of “ordinary firmness” should be an objective or subjective test. The Court opines that the test starts out as objective, but the presumption of “ordinary firmness” can be rebutted, which then shifts the analysis to a subjective test. In the Carrier case, the Court found that “the quality of firmness is assumed to exist in every person competent to contract, unless it appears that by reason of old age or other sufficient cause he is weak or infirm.” The unique nature of a marriage supports the use of a subjective tests. Parties to a marriage contract “do not quite deal at arm’s length, but rather at the time the contract is entered into stand in a relation of mutual confidence and trust” Simeone, 581 A.2d at 167. Parties to a marriage contract have intimate knowledge about whether the part is weak or infirm.
In this case, Wife had been under psychiatric care for some time before the execution of the settlement agreement. Husband “forced” his way into the psychiatric appointments in spite of Wife’s protests, successfully suggested an unnecessary diagnosis, dispensed Wife’s medications which he kept locked away, and refused to tell her what they were or what they were for. Wife then attempted suicide after Husband told her leave the house, she would never see her daughter again, and urged her to kill herself. Husband then involuntarily committed her to a psychiatric hospital and then mentioned for the first time signing a separation agreement. Wife was still physically and psychologically unstable. After her release from the hospital, Wife continued to feel unstable, and though her psychiatrist changed her medication, Husband continue to dispense the medication to wife. After leaving Husband, Wife was able to obtain a PFA and take control of her own mental health. According to Wife, none of the antidepressants or mood stabilizers were necessary.
The Court found that given Husband’s systematic mental and physical abuse and the side effects of the unnecessary medication that Husband controlled, Wife rebutted the presumption that she possessed ordinary firmness at the time she signed the agreement and therefore the Court could consider her specific frame of mind.
Finally, the Court turns to whether she was free to consult with counsel. This final part of the analysis is often where many claims fail. No matter how severe the actions or tactics were, if the party was free to consult with an attorney, the claim fails. The burden is on the party seeking to invalidate the agreement that to prove that she did not have an opportunity to consult with an attorney. The opportunity to consult with an attorney may occur long before a proposed agreement is ever reduced to writing. In this case, the Court found that Wife had no time to consult with an attorney. Wife claimed Husband told her that she would never see her daughter again if she consulted with an attorney. The agreement was given to her during the car ride from her therapist and she was taken from there immediately to the notary.
The Court upheld the trial court’s opinion to invalidate the post-nuptial agreement on the basis of duress and fraud.