Property settlement agreements are also sometimes called “spousal agreements," “property agreements," or simply, “settlement agreements.” A valid property settlement agreement needs to be in writing and signed by both spouses in order to be effective.
Each party must exercise honesty in disclosing their financial background and when listing assets.
Part I focuses on the accused spouse and examines what conduct may be characterized as fraud. Other courts have listed the same basic requirements albeit in slightly different wording. For example, counsel might take the position that the alleged misrepresentation was one of opinion rather than fact.
Part II focuses on the accusing spouse and examines the issue of due diligence and reliance, as well as the impact of a lack of independent legal advice. The party attempting to set aside a decree on the ground that it was procured by fraud must make the usual showings required for fraud.
The “merger” or “integration” clause, in one form or another, has found its way into most commercial contracts. The merger clause comes in a variety of forms, but generally looks something like this: This Agreement represents the Parties’ entire understanding regarding the subject matter herein.
None of the terms of this Agreement can be waived or modified, except by an express agreement signed by the Parties.
There are no representations, promises, warranties, covenants, or undertakings between the Parties other than those expressly set forth in this Agreement.
As the recent cases discussed in this article illustrate, a whole host of issues complicates fraud-based motions for relief from judgment. 212, 595 A.2d 1377 (1991) (plaintiff must show that (1) a false representation was made as a statement of fact; (2) the statement was untrue and was known to be so by its maker; (3) the statement was made with the intent of inducing reliance); Despain v. By analyzing how these elements apply to the facts in a particular case, counsel for the accused spouse may begin to see a defense theory take shape. 2015) examines claim preclusion (“res judicata”) in the context of an aborted settlement agreement reached in an earlier state court breach of contract case.But the plaintiff breached the settlement agreement and after the defendant moved to enforce it, a million dollar judgment entered against the plaintiff in the state court action.Part III addresses a number of miscellaneous issues. With respect to the conduct that constitutes fraud, Delaware's high court held that these showings were required: (1) a false representation, usually one of fact, made by the defendant; (2) the defendant's knowledge or belief that the representation was false or was made with reckless indifference to the truth; and (3) an intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting. 516, 632 P.2d 35 (1981) (insufficient evidence that husband actually knew of possible zoning change and its potential effect on the value of the marital home at the time of the dissolution proceedings). But most states have a longer time limit, or no time limit at all, for attacks grounded on extrinsic fraud . But Minnesota's high court said that such a narrow definition is inappropriate in marriage dissolution cases because of the trial court's unique role in such cases, where the trial court sits as a third party on behalf of the state to see that a fair distribution is made.