Case Title: MARRIAGE OF LAWRENCE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-356 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JOHN CARLYLE LAWRENCE, Petitioner and Respondent, and SHARON M. LAWRENCE, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Ferguson & Mitchell, Missoula, Montana Kinsey & Lashlee, Long Beach, California For Respondent: Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 2, 1982 Decided : Filed: MAR 2 2 1982 Clerk Ivlr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s appeal a r i s e s o u t of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s - t r i c t , County of Missoula, S t a t e of Montana, from an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e wife t o s p e c i f i c a l l y perform a s e p a r a t i o n agreement t h a t had been e n t e r e d i n t o with t h e husband i n 1976 and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e of A p r i l 27, 1976. S p e c i f i c performance c o n s i s t e d of w i f e ' s execut- ing q u i t c l a i m deeds f o r c e r t a i n mining p r o p e r t i e s , upon which a cloud t o t i t l e a p p a r e n t l y e x i s t e d because t h e y had a t one time been h e l d by t h e p a r t i e s a s husband and wife. The wife responded t o her husband's s u i t f o r s p e c i - f i c performance by r e q u e s t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e 1976 p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t be s e t a s i d e a s unconscionable and a f r a u d on t h e c o u r t . Two l e n g t h y h e a r i n g s were h e l d i n J u l y and A u g u s t , 1 9 8 0 , f o l l o w e d by t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e w i f e t o s i g n t h e d e e d s and denying her motion t o s e t a s i d e t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . The wife s e t s f o r t h o n l y two i s s u e s t o be c o n s i d e r e d . The husband s e t s f o r t h f i v e i s s u e s o u t of t h e w i f e ' s sug- g e s t e d two, which we f i n d more i n c l u s i v e and u s e f u l f o r a proper d i s c u s s i o n of t h e c a s e . Those i s s u e s a r e : 1. Should t h e t r i a l c o u r t have s e t a s i d e t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n e n t e r e d i n t h i s m a t t e r on t h e grounds t h a t i t was o b t a i n e d by a f r a u d on t h e c o u r t ? 2. Is t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s unconscionable? 3 . Is t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement c o n t r a r y t o p u b l i c pol icy? 4. Is t h e w i f e ' s a t t a c k on t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n b a r r e d by l a c h e s ? 5. Should t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a v e r e f u s e d t o e n f o r c e t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e husband came b e f o r e it w i t h u n c l e a n hands? The p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d on March 27, 1 9 6 8 , a t Mackey, I d a h o , and h a v e two c h i l d r e n . E a r l y i n t h e m a r r i a g e t h e y moved t o t h e Thompson F a l l s , Montana, h e a d q u a r t e r s o f t h e U.S. Antimony C o r p o r a t i o n . The husband is employed by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a s manager o f m i n i n g , g e o l o g y and m e t a l - l u r g y . H e is a l s o t h e l a r g e s t s t o c k h o l d e r w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 4 p e r c e n t of t h e i s s u e d s h a r e s . A t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i s - s o l u t i o n , t h e husband had between 660,000 and 800,000 s h a r e s v a l u e d by v a r i o u s p a r t i e s from $.50 t o $1.50. The m a r r i a g e was n o t o n e made i n heaven. The w i f e ' s c o u n s e l d e s c r i b e s it a s m e r c u r i a l , marked by d i s a g r e e m e n t and v i o l e n c e . I n 1 9 7 4 , t h e husband f i l e d f o r a d i v o r c e a l l e g i n g a d u l t e r y . The w i f e r e t a i n e d M i s s o u l a c o u n s e l , b r i e f e d him on h e r c a s e and a s k e d him t o p r e p a r e a " p o s t - n u p t i a l agreement ." T h e r e a f t e r , t h e w i f e r e t u r n e d t o t h e home i n Thompson F a l l s , and t h e p a r t i e s a t t e m p t e d a recon- c i l i a t i o n . Both p a r t i e s a g r e e t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e recon- c i l i a t i o n were t h e c h i l d r e n . During t h i s p e r i o d , t h e husband d i s m i s s e d t h e o r i g i n a l d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . I n 1976, f o r t h e same r e a s o n s g i v e n i n h i s o r i g i n a l c a u s e , t h e husband r e i n s t i t u t e d t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . T h i s time, t h e w i f e o b t a i n e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y who s e r v e d h e r t h r o u g h o u t t h e s e c o n d d i s s o l u t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . Numerous m e e t i n g s were h e l d by t h e new c o u n s e l w i t h t h e w i f e and t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l . A g a i n , a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d was d i s c u s s e d , and t h e w i f e was a d v i s e d by c o u n s e l a s t o h e r r i g h t s t o t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e couple. I n f a c t , both counsel employed by t h e w i f e , t h e f i r s t who advised her i n 1974 on t h e " p o s t - n u p t i a l agreement" and t h e second who r e p r e s e n t e d her on t h e " p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t , s u p p o r t and c u s t o d i a l a y r e e m e n t , " advised her t h a t s h e c o u l d , i f s h e c o n t e s t e d t h e d i s s o l u - t i o n , " g e t more property." The t r i a l c o u r t noted i n its Conclusion of Law XIII: "The Court would, under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , o r d i n a r i l y c o n s i d e r t h e M a r i t a l and P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t unconscionable. How- e v e r , t h e Respondent was r e p r e s e n t e d by a v e r y competent and knowledgeable a t t o r n e y . She e n t e r e d i n t o t h e P r o p e r t y S e t t l e m e n t Agreement w i t h a f a i r l y complete knowledge of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and d e s p i t e t h e p r o t e s t a - t i o n s of h e r counsel t h a t he f e l t t h e prop- e r t y s e t t l e m e n t was n e i t h e r f a i r nor e q u i t - a b l e and h i s a d v i c e t h a t i f s h e went t o Court on t h e p r o p e r t y a s p e c t s of t h e c a s e s h e could probably g e t more." However, n e a r l y two y e a r s a f t e r t h e f i r s t f i l i n g by t h e husband, t h e wife d i r e c t e d her a t t o r n e y t o p r e p a r e f o r s i g n a t u r e t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement s h e now wants t o s e t a s i d e on t h e b a s i s of fraud upon t h e c o u r t , c o e r c i o n and unconscionabil i t y . The s e p a r a t i o n ayreement gave t h e wife four l o t s i n Mackey, Idaho, with improvements t h e r e o n , i n c l u d i n g a house f r e e and c l e a r of l i e n s and encumbrances, a l l t h e f u r n i t u r e i n t h e house i n Thompson F a l l s , a t t o r n e y f e e s , moving expenses, $2,500, and maintenance of $200 per month f o r four y e a r s . The t o t a l amount t o her i n money and p r o p e r t y was The husband f a r e d much b e t t e r . He received t h e f a m i l y horne i n Thompson F a l l s and t h e ninety-nine a c r e s on which it was l o c a t e d , a l l t h e s t o c k i n U.S. Antimony C o r p o r a t i o n , an a i r p l a n e , a pickup t r u c k , and bank a c c o u n t s amounting t o approximately $5,800. The t o t a l v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y was between $227,000 t o $422,500 depending on t h e v a l u e g i v e n t h e s t o c k . Of s p e c i a l n o t e i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e v a l u e of t h e s t o c k is t h a t , a t t h e time of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , t h e s t o c k was r e s t r i c t e d by S e c u r i t y and Exchange r u l e s which could have r e s u l t e d i n t h e husband r e c e i v i n g a p r i c e d i s c o u n t of a s rnuch a s 50 p e r c e n t i f he had s o l d o r t r a n s f e r r e d a substan- t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e same. The husband t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e time of d i s s o l u t i o n he had 660,000 s h a r e s . During t h e f i r s t t r a d i n g q u a r t e r of 1976, f r e e t r a d i n g s t o c k had a v a l u e of $.a875 t o $1.00 p e r s h a r e . I n a d d i t i o n , during t h e f i r s t q u a r t e r of 1976, t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was i n s e r i o u s f i n a n c i a l t r o u b l e . The company's primary product was b a t t e r y g r a d e antimony. The market f o r t h i s product c o l l a p s e d i n 1975 when t h e automobile i n d u s t r y switched t o a calcium l e a d b a t t e r y . Due t o t h e s w i t c h , c o r p o r a t e p r o f i t s went from $200,000 i n 1975 t o a l o s s of $213,000 i n 1976. S u b s t a n t i a l l o s s e s occurred i n subsequent y e a r s a s w e l l . O n A p r i l 1, 1976, t h e company was b a r e l y a b l e t o make its p a y r o l l . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , t h e husband had t o p e r s o n a l l y g u a r a n t e e a small b u s i n e s s l o a n of $300,000 t o save t h e o p e r a t i o n s . S i n c e 1976 t h e company h a s had t o g e t i n t o e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h o p e r a t i o n s t o f i n d a use f o r a p r e v i o u s l y s a l a b l e product. A l l of t h e s e f a c t s were known t o t h e w i f e and her a t t o r n e y i n d e c i d i n g whether t o t r y t o o b t a i n some of t h e s t o c k i n t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . The d e c i s i o n of t h e w i f e was n o t t o do so. The wife now a l l e g e s t h a t t h e husband p e r s o n a l l y attempted t o persuade o r coerce her i n t o t a k i n g t h e one- s i d e d p r o p e r t y agreement ~ y t h r e a t e n i n g t o g e t c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e wife a l l e g e s t h a t t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement approved by t h e c o u r t is f a u l t y because it does n o t c o n t a i n an i n v e n t o r y of t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s b u t merely lists what t h e w i f e is t o r e c e i v e and l e a v e s t h e r e s t t o t h e husband. The D i s t r i c t Court was a l s o c o n s i d e r i n g t h e husband's p e t i t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c performance. The U . S. Antimony Cor- p o r a t i o n owned mining c l a i m s i n both Montana and Idaho. I n 1979, t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , t h e c o r p o r a t i o n sought t o s e l l t h e Idaho p r o p e r t i e s and t o g r a n t an easement t o t h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e over some of t h e Montana p r o p e r t i e s . A t i t l e s e a r c h r e v e a l e d a cloud on t h e t i t l e i n v o l v i i ~ g t h e w i f e ' s name. A t t h e time of its a c q u i s i t i o n , t h e husband took t h e Idaho p r o p e r t y i n h i s own name. He l a t e r a s s i g n e d a l l r i g h t s t o a predecessor c o r p o r a t i o n of U.S. Antimony C o r p o r a t i o n and was reimbursed by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f o r t h e downpayment. The c o r p o r a t i o n paid a l l sums remaining on c o n t r a c t . S i n c e he was married t o t h e wife a t t h e time of a c q u i s i t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n of an i n c h o a t e r i g h t i n her a r o s e , based on t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . The a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e Montana p r o p e r t i e s was handled i n much t h e same f a s h i o n , except both t h e wife and husband signed t h e papers a c q u i r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y , and, on a d v i s e of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s c o u n s e l , t h e y signed o n l y a m i n e r a l deed i n t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e c l a i m s t o t h e company. A s was done on t h e Idaho p r o p e r t y , t h e husband was f u l l y reimbursed f o r h i s downpayment, and t h e company paid t h e remainder. The record i n d i c a t e s n e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s intended t o keep any i n t e r e s t i n t h e c l a i r n s o r s u r f a c e r i g h t s and t h a t n e i t h e r p a i d money f o r which t h e y were n o t r e i m b u r s e d . The methods used i n a c q u i r i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n is common i n t h e i n d u s t r y . The f i r s t i s s u e is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have set a s i d e t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t was o b t a i n e d by a f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . T h i s i s s u e is n o t one of f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n Montana. T h i s C o u r t r e c e n t l y c o l ~ s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e i n P i l a t i v . P i l a t i ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. - , 592 P.2d 1 3 7 4 , 36 St.Rep. 619, and i n e a r l i e r c a s e s - b e f o r e t h e C o u r t . S e e , I n R e Bad Yellow H a i r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. 1 0 7 , 509 P.2d 9; Selway v . B u r n s ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 5 0 Mont. 1, 429 P.2d 640. However, t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n h e r e d i f f e r s from t h a t o f P i l a t i . I n P i l a t i t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d when t h e w i f e was s i x t e e n y e a r s of a g e and t h e husband was t h i r t y - e i g h t . The m a r r i a g e l a s t e d t h i r t e e n y e a r s , and t h e p a r t i e s had two c h i l d r e n . The w i f e had a n i n t h g r a d e e d u c a t i o n and had n e v e r been employed p r i o r t o t h e m a r r i a g e . The husband h e l d b o t h a B a c h e l o r ' s and a P l a s t e r ' s d e g r e e , was working on a Ph.D. a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b r i e f s , h e had a J . D . H e n o t o n l y was b o t h a r a n c h e r and a h i g h s c h o o l t e a c h e r b u t had c o r ~ s i d e r a b l e e x p e r i e n c e i n r e a l e s t a t e a p p r a i s a l s . The r e c o r d i n P i l a t i i n d i c a t e d t h e husband h a n d l e d a l l t h e f i n a n c e s o f t h e f a m i l y t o t h e e x t e n t o f p u r c h a s i n g e v e r y - t h i n g , i n c l u d i n g g r o c e r i e s and c l o t h i n g . The w i f e knew n o t h i n g of t h e p a r t i e s ' f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s which, it was a l l e g e d , was d e l i b e r a t e l y k e p t secret from h e r . In t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e how much e d u c a t i o n t h e w i f e had. I t would a p p e a r s h e d i d h a v e a job of some s t a t u s a t t h e time t h e couple met and were married. The c o u r t i n its Conclusion of Law V I I I noted t h a t t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement was e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e wife with f u l l knowledge of t h e p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s and its v a l u e . Conclusion of Law I X i n d i c a t e d t h a t she was r e p r e s e n t e d by competent counsel i n n e g o t i a t i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement. Conclusion of Law X i n d i c a t e d t h a t she consented t o t h e p r o p e r t y agreement, and t h e p r o p e r t y agreement was given f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y without f r a u d , overreaching o r undue i n f l u e n c e . I n a d d i t i o n , a t t h e two h e a r i n g s t h e r e was c o n s i d e r - a b l e testimony i n d i c a t i n g t h a t both counsel who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e w i f e , t h e a t t o r n e y o r i g i n a l l y h i r e d by her i n 1974 and t h e a t t o r n e y who drew up t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement f o r her i n 1976, advised h e r f u l l y a s t o t h e f a c t t h a t s h e probably could g e t more p r o p e r t y i f s h e went t o t r i a l . C l e a r l y , we do n o t have a p e t i t i o n e r i n t h e same s t a t u s a s t h e p e t i t i o n e r i n P i l a t i v. P i l a t i , s u p r a . A t t h e h e a r i n g s both counsel f o r husband and wife t e s t i f i e d . Their testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e time of d r a f t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement and t h e d i s - s o l u t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e r e were a t l e a s t t e n c o n f e r - eilces, e i t h e r p e r s o n a l o r by t e l e p h o n e , of some extended l e n g t h , where counsel l a i d f o r t h a l l of t h e f a c t s concerning t h e p r o p e r t y involved. There was nothing l e f t under t h e t a b l e a t t h e time t h e p a r t i e s signed t h e agreement. I n a d d i t i o n , it is t o be remembered t h a t t h e f a c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e wife brought t h e proposal f o r t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e - ment t o her counsel and d i r e c t e d him t o put it i n t o l e g a l form and o b t a i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n a s soon a s p o s s i b l e . A t t h a t t i m e , counsel advised her a s t o her r i g h t s , a s he had p r e v i o u s l y done, and i n d i c a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t t h i n k i t was a good agreement. However, t h e w i f e i n s i s t e d on having it f i n a l i z e d and, a t t h a t time, i n d i c a t e d none of t h e p r e s s u r e s t h a t have been c a l l e d t o a t t e n t i o n i n o t h e r c a s e s where such agreements have been s e t a s i d e . The wife u r g e s t h i s Court t o adopt I n Re Marriage of Gonzalez ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 57 Cal.App.3d 736, 129 Cal.Rptr. 566. Gorlzalez is unique i n t h a t t h e husband's mere t h r e a t t o , i n t e r a l i a , t a k e i l l e g a l custody of t h e c h i l d r e n c o n s t i t u t e d d u r e s s s u f f i c i e n t enough f o r r e s c i s s i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t . But, Gonzalez is n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e f o r i n t h i s c a s e t h e husband f i l e d t h e p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g a d u l t e r y , a f a c t t h a t a p p a r e n t l y t h e wife d i d n o t want t o be made p u b l i c by going t o t r i a l because it might p r e v e n t her from g e t t i n g h e r c h i l d r e n . I n Gonzalez t h e wife, n o t t h e husband, f i l e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a p p a r e n t l y good reasons. I n Gonzalez t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was so " d i s t r a u g h t and worried about t h e c l ~ i l d r e n " t h a t s h e d i d n o t remember s i g n i n g t h e p e t i t i o n . That is n o t t h e c a s e h e r e . A s p r e v i o u s l y noted, t h e w i f e brought t h e s e t t l e m e n t s h e wanted t o her a t t o r n e y t o put i n l e g a l form. C e r t a i n l y she knew what it c o n t a i n e d . I n Gonzalez t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e w i f e was t h r e a t e n e d t h a t , i f she d i d n o t s i g n when s h e d i d , s h e would l o s e e v e r y t h i n g . Here, t h e wife knew what s h e was g e t t i n g and knew what h e r husband was g e t t i n g . F u r t h e r , s h e knew of her r i g h t t o seek more i n c o u r t . The wife a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement must c o n t a i n a f u l l i n v e n t o r y of a l l t h e a s s e t s owned by t h e p a r t i e s i n o r d e r f o r t h e c o u r t t o p a s s upon its conscion- a b i l i t y . F u r t h e r , s h e contends t h e f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e such i n v e n t o r y is a fraud upon t h e c o u r t under P i l a t i . Indeed, t h i s Court h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a f u l l i n v e n t o r y of t h e a s s e t s should be made. However, w e have n o t held t h a t a l a c k of an i n v e n t o r y is f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . W e noted i n P i l a t i t h a t t h e fraud was t h e f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e a l l t h e a s s e t s t o t h e w i f e , n o t t h e f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e a l l t h e a s s e t s t o t h e c o u r t . Here, while t h e c o u r t may n o t have been f u l l y a d v i s e d a s t o a l l p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s , t h e r e c o r d shows t h e c o u r t was n o t confused by t h e omission of a f u l l i n v e n t o r y from t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement. The wife c i t e s Hamilton v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 607 P.2d 102, 37 St.Rep. 247, i n s u p p o r t of her argu- - ment t h a t t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement must list a l l p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s . Hamilton is n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . Hamilton involved a c o n t e s t e d p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n , and t h e problem i n t h a t c a s e was t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t make f i n d i n g s s u f f i c i e n t t o allow t h i s Court t o review its d e c i s i o n . Where, a s h e r e , t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e r e was no d u r e s s o r c o e r c i o n , t h i s Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e d e c i s i o n u n l e s s it is c l e a r l y erroneous. The f a c t s of each c a s e w i l l v a r y s u b s t a n t i a l l y . W e recognize it is a common p r a c t i c e t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e of c h i l d custody i n many, i f n o t most, m a r r i a g e d i s s o l u t i o n a c t i o n s . By t h i s o p i n i o n we do n o t encourage a c h a l l e n g e of n e g o t i a t e d p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreements where c u s t o d y r i g h t s have been s e t t l e d on an arm's l e n g t h b a s i s a s here. I t would o n l y be an e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e where we would c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t o r s considered by t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t i n Gonzalez, s u p r a . W e note f u r t h e r t h a t i n t h e c a s e of Winters v. Winters ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Ivlont . , 61fl P.2d 1165, 37 St.Rep. 847, we held t h a t a t h r e a t t o r e p u t a t i o n does n o t v i t i a t e a p a r t y ' s consent. There, t h e wife d i s c o v e r e d t h a t her husband had engaged i n a d u l t e r o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s and demanded t h a t he pay a c e r t a i n sum of money per month a s p a r t of t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t agreement o r s h e would drag her hus- b a n d ' s l o v e r ' s name through t h e mud. I n a subsequent pro- ceeding, t h e husband a l l e g e d t h a t t h i s was fraud and d u r e s s , b u t t h e c o u r t h e l d it was n o t . While W i n t e r s is d i f f e r e n t from t h e p r e s e n t c a s e because t h e t h r e a t was t o a person who was n o t a p a r t y , t h a t d i f f e r e n c e is n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . I n Winters t h e husband sought t o avoid an embarrassing h e a r i n g , and t h a t is a concern t h a t e x i s t s whenever t h e r e is a t h r e a t t o a r e p u t a t i o n . The second i s s u e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is whether t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s is uncon- s c i o n a b l e . W e t h i n k n o t . The w i f e n o t e s t h a t "unconscion- a b i l i t y " , a s a term of a r t r e f e r r i n g t o u n f a i r c o n t r a c t s , h a s a f a r broader reach t h a n t h e c l a s s i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s which were s u f f i c i e n t t o void c o n t r a c t s ( l a c k of c o n s i d e r a - t i o n , f r a u d , d u r e s s , and undue i n f l u e n c e ) , though it, of c o u r s e , i n c l u d e s them. U n c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y , a s used i n t h e Uriiform Marriage and Divorce Act, is d i s c u s s e d i n t h e Code Commissioner's comments on s e c t i o n 40-4-201, MCA. The wife a r g u e s t h a t t h e agreement was unconscionable i n a number of r e s p e c t s . F i r s t , without s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i - c a t i o n i t e s t a b l i s h e d a g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e d i v i s i o n of m a r i t a l a s s e t s , awarding o n l y $50,000 of t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e w i f e and $9,600 i n a l i m o n y o u t o f a $422,008 m a r i t a l e s t a t e , The w i f e a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a c t s h e r e c e i v e d t h e a d v i c e o f c o m p e t e n t c o u n s e l b e f o r e s h e s i g n e d t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement d i d n o t i n any manner d i l u t e o r m i t i g a t e t h e u n f a i r n e s s o f t h e terms o f t h e a g r e e m e n t o r , a s t h e t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s , i s o l a t e h e r from t h e f e a r and a n x i e t y c r e a t e d by h e r h u s b a n d ' s t h r e a t s and i m p o r t u n i t i e s . The w i f e would r e q u i r e t h a t b e f o r e t h e a g r e e m e n t was a c c e p t e d by t h e c o u r t i n 1 9 7 6 , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e been informed o f a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and o n l y t h e n would it n o t b e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . I t is a p p a r e n t from t h e above t h a t t h e w i f e would have t h e c o u r t l o o k o n l y a t t h e numbers and c o n c l u d e w i t h o u t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e was g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e a n d t h e r e f o r e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . However, w i t h r e s p e c t t o c e r t a i n k i n d s o f p r o p e r t y , c o u r t s must e x e r c i s e s u b s t a n t i a l d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g v a l u e . T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e c a s e o f s t o c k v a l u e s . I n I n R e M a r r i a g e of L i p p e r t ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 627 P.2d 1 2 0 6 , 38 St.Rep. 625, t h i s C o u r t h e l d : "The e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s n e c e s s a r y when d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w o r t h of m a r i t a l a s s e t s which f l u c t u a t e i n v a l u e . For example, t h e v a l u e o f a p a r t i c u - l a r common s t o c k may c h a n g e d r a s t i c a l l y d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a d i s s o l u t i o n w h i l e t h e v a l u e of t h e f a m i l y home o r o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y r e m a i n s s t a b l e . Under s u c h circum- s t a n c e s s e l e c t i o n o f a s i n g l e e v a l u a t i o n p o i n t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g n e t w o r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d c r e a t e an i n e q u i t a b l e d i s p o s i - t i o n . " 627 P.2d a t 1208. H e r e , a s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , r e l y i n g s o l e l y on t h e m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e s t o c k i n e a r l y 1976 would be i n a p p r o p r i - a t e . The h u s b a n d ' s s t o c k was r e s t r i c t e d and g r e a t l y r e d u c e d i n v a l u e . The c o r p o r a t i o n which i s s u e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s s t o c k was i n s e r i o u s f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t y which c a u s e d a s h a r p d e c l i n e i n t h e s t o c k ' s v a l u e i n 1976, A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h e 1976 annual r e p o r t showed a low f i g u r e of $.50 per s h a r e i n t h e f o u r t h q u a r t e r of 1976. The market of t h e corpora- t i o n ' s main product had c o l l a p s e d , and t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was v i r t u a l l y o u t of c a s h , I n a d d i t i o n , t h e husband had person- a l l y extended himself t o g u a r a n t e e i n g a $300,000 s m a l l b u s i n e s s l o a n t o keep t h e c o r p o r a t i o n o p e r a t i n g and t o pay t h e s a l a r i e s due. The c o u r t m u s t have c o n s i d e r e d t h e s e f a c t s i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y of t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement. The husband had o n l y 14.5 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . Had he g i v e n some of t h i s up o r l i q u i d a t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of it and paid t h e proceeds t o t h e w i f e h i s p o s i t i o n i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n would have been reduced t o such a p o i n t t h a t h i s c o n t r o l would have been i n s e r i o u s jeopardy, Had t h a t happened, it would have made no s e n s e f o r him t o g u a r a n t e e t h e $300,000 l o a n t o t h e Small Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n so t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n could have continued. I n a d d i t i o n , had t h e company c o l l a p s e d a f t e r he borrowed t h e $300,000, n o t o n l y would h i s s t o c k have been w o r t h l e s s b u t t h e r e would have been no s o u r c e s t o pay t h e d e b t o t h e r t h a n h i s o t h e r a s s e t s , which were n o t s u f f i c i e n t . I n e a r l y 1976 it is unquestionable t h a t t h e husband r i s k e d bankruptcy t o s a v e t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . Viewing t h e s e f a c t s , t h e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n of t h e company and t h e r i s k t h a t t h e husband took t o m a i n t a i n t h e cornpany, n e i t h e r t h i s Court nor t h e t r i a l c o u r t is compelled t o reach a conclusion t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t was unconscionable. W e noted i n I n Re Marriage of Jorgensen (1979) I - Mont. - , 590 P.2d 606, 36 St.Rep. 2 3 3 , t h a t where a husband r e c e i v e d $692,701.84 (mostly i n s t o c k ) and h i s w i f e r e c e i v e d $83,167, t h e d i s p o s i t i o n was n o t uncon- s c i o n a b l e . The w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t a l l o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s a c t i o n s amounted t o undue i n f l u e n c e , which would n e g a t e c o n s e n t and make t h e a g r e e m e n t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . Under s e c t i o n 28-2-407, MCA, undue i n f l u e n c e c o n s i s t s o f : " (1) t h e u s e by o n e i n whom a c o n f i d e n c e is r e p o s e d by a n o t h e r o r who h o l d s a r e a l o r a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y o v e r him o f s u c h c o n f i - d e n c e o r a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o b t a i n i n g a n u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o v e r him; " ( 2 ) t a k i n g an u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o f a n o t h e r ' s weakness o f mind; o r " ( 3 ) t a k i n g a g r o s s l y o p p r e s s i v e and u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o f a n o t h e r ' s n e c e s s i t i e s o r d i s t r e s s . " Here it is u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e w i f e had any c o n f i d e n c e o r t r u s t i n t h e husband i n t h e l a t t e r y e a r s o f t h e m a r r i a g e , p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r 1974 when t h e f i r s t d i v o r c e was f i l e d and i n 1976 when t h e f i n a l d e c r e e was g r a n t e d . The e v i d e n c e is c o n c l u s i v e t h a t t h e w i f e was n o t s u f f e r i n g from a n y weakness o f mind. Her a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f i n a l a g r e e m e n t was b a s e d on h e r p r o p o s a l and s h e u n d e r s t o o d its terms when s h e s i g n e d it. D i v o r c e s a r e f r e q u e n t l y t r a u m a t i c and a r i s e i n s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t t h e r e is undue i n f l u e n c e , e s p e c i a l l y i f e a c h p a r t y is r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o m p e t e n t c o u n s e l . When a l l t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d , t h e a g r e e m e n t , w h i l e it may b e d i f f e r e n t from what t h e c o u r t would h a v e d e c r e e d i n a c o n t e s t e d m a t t e r , d o e s n o t become u n c o n s c i o n a b l e under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d is w h e t h e r t h e s e p a r a t i o n agreement is c o n t r a r y t o p u b l i c p o l i c y . The w i f e would h a v e t h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e t h a t a s e p a r a t i o n is v i o l a t i v e o f p u b l i c p o l i c y i f o n e of t h e p a r t i e s t h r e a t e n e d a c u s t o d y f i g h t i n o r d e r t o g a i n i n t h e p r o p e r t y d i s t r i b u t i o n . While t h e w i f e c o n t e n d s t h a t o n l y r a r e l y would a s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t b e s u b j e c t t o a t t a c k on t h i s g r o u n d , t h e f a c t is t h a t s u c h a r u l i n g would e x p o s e many s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t s t o a t t a c k and w o r s e , would n o t b e b a s e d on a n y k i n d o f a r e a l i s t i c under- s t a n d i n g o f p r e a g r e e m e n t n e g o t i a t i o n s . The f a c t s a r e t h a t c u s t o d y is f r e q u e n t l y a b a r g a i n i n g c h i p i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t n e g o t i a t i o n s w h e t h e r we l i k e it o r n o t . A s n o t e d i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e G o n z a l e z c a s e , s u p r a , we a r e n o t a b o u t t o go a s f a r a s t h a t c o u r t d i d i n s e t t i n g a s i d e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t s , s u c h a s we h a v e h e r e , a s v i o l a t i v e o f p u b l i c p o l i c y . W e f i n d it u n n e c e s s a r y , i n v i e w o f o u r h o l d i n g on t h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , t o c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f l a c h e s . The f i n a l i s s u e is w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have r e f u s e d t o e n f o r c e t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e husband came b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i t h u n c l e a n hands. S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y o r d e r t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e q u i t c l a i m d e e d s by t h e w i f e . W e have h e r e s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s t h a t have gone uncon- t e s t e d r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . N e i t h e r p a r t y g a v e a n y t h i n g o f v a l u e f o r t h e m i n i n g p r o p e r t i e s i n q u e s t i o n , I t was n e v e r t h e i n t e n t o f e i t h e r t o r e t a i n a n y kind o f an i n t e r e s t i n t h e mining p r o p e r t i e s . F u r t h e r , i t i s t h e c o m p a n y , n o t t h e h u s b a n d , w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e t h e m i n i n g p r o p e r t i e s s i n c e it h a s p a i d f o r them. I n v i e w o f t h e s e f a c t s , t h e w i f e ' s argument l o s e s much of its f o r c e , s i n c e t h e husband is n o t g o i n g t o p e r s o n - a l l y p r o f i t from t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e q u i t c l a i m d e e d s . The husband is s e e k i n g t o e n f o r c e t h e d e c r e e o f d i s - s o l u t i o n , n o t a c o n t r a c t . By its terms, s e c t i o n 27-1-415, MCA, on which t h e w i f e r e l i e s i n a s s e r t i n g h e r d e f e n s e o f u n c l e a n h a n d s , is a p p l i c a b l e o n l y t o c o n t r a c t s . Here, t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e d e c r e e a n d , a s s u c h , is e n f o r c e a b l e a s a judgment under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 40-4-201(5), MCA. The w i f e c o u l d have c h a l l e n g e d t h e p r o p e r t y d i s p o s i t i o n p r o v i d e d i n t h e d e c r e e by n o t s i g n i n g it. However, s h e c h o s e n o t t o do s o and c a n n o t now be h e a r d t o a r g u e what s h e c o u l d h a v e done i n 1976. S e e , Hopper v . Hopper ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. - , 601 P.2d 29, 36 S t .Rep. 1695. The w i f e is c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k i n g t h e d e c r e e . She is a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e d e c r e e is u n e n f o r c e a b l e b e c a u s e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which it was e n t e r e d i n t o . T h i s C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a d e c r e e r e n d e r e d f r e e f r o m e x t r i n s i c f r a u d may n o t b e a t t a c k e d c o l l a t e r a l l y o r d i r e c t l y . Deich v. Deich ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 3 6 Mont. 566, 323 P.2d 35. W e f i n d under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e t h e husband d o e s n o t come b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i t h u n c l e a n h a n d s . F u r t h e r , t h e u n c l e a n h a n d s d o c t r i n e is n o t a d e f e n s e t o e n f o r c e m e n t o f a judgment, e s p e c i a l l y when t h e d e f e n s e is b a s e d on a c t s o c c u r r i n g b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f judgment, and t h e judgment h a s n o t been set a s i d e . The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: