Case Title: Crosby v. Crosby

Citation: 188 Kan. 274, 362 P.2d 3

Docket Number: 42,262

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1961-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
188 Kan. 274 (1961)
362 P.2d 3
THOMAS MAYO CROSBY, Appellee,
v.
MARJORIE ROSEN CROSBY, Appellant.
No. 42,262

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 13, 1961.
Lester M. Goodell and Harold Doherty, both of Topeka, argued the cause, and Margaret McGurnaghan, Marlin S. Casey, Raymond Briman, Thomas R. Sewell, Gerald L. Goodell, and James Benfer, all of Topeka, were with them on the briefs for the appellant.
James L. Grimes, Jr., of Topeka, argued the cause and M.F. Cosgrove, Robert E. Russell, Willard N. Van Slyck, Jr., William B. McElhenny, O.R. Stites, Jr., and Lawrence D. Munns, all of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This is the second appearance in this court of a divorce case. (See Crosby v. Crosby, 186 Kan. 420, 350 P.2d 796.)
In the case cited the trial court granted the husband a divorce from the wife, denied the wife a divorce, and rendered judgment making provision for permanent alimony, division of property, and allowance of attorneys' fees. In such appeal this court reversed the judgment granting the husband a divorce, affirmed the judgment *275 denying the wife a divorce, and in connection with the other rulings just mentioned said:
And held:
In conformity with our disposition of the first appeal the trial court retried the case and rendered a judgment which, so far as here pertinent, reads:
Following rendition of the foregoing judgment the defendant (wife) perfected the instant appeal wherein she states, and the plaintiff (husband) inferentially, if not expressly, agrees, the appellate issues now involved are:
The opinion in the first case discloses the factual picture necessary to enable readers of this opinion to have a proper understanding of what this case is about. Indeed, it may be said that insofar as the above stated appellate issues are concerned, the evidence in the second trial was substantially, if not identically, the same as in the former case. For that reason the lengthy statement of facts appearing in the first opinion, which we now incorporate in this opinion by reference, will, when implemented by additional facts, not directly involved in the first opinion, suffice to supply the factual background essential to the disposition of the appellate issues here involved.
The supplementary facts required to complete the factual picture, all of which can be said to be established by evidence of record which is uncontroverted and therefore must be considered as decisive of the rights of the parties, may be stated thus:
The postnuptial agreement, found by the trial court to be valid in settling the property rights of the parties, was executed at a time when the appellee believed the appellant to be a very sick and mentally ill person suffering from an illness which had been diagnosed by physicians specializing in the practice of psychiatry as hyper manic-depressive psychosis. Further facts as to the extent of his knowledge regarding her condition at that time are set forth in the first opinion and need not be repeated. Such agreement is somewhat lengthy. Nevertheless since it is highly important to the disposition of the appellate issues involved we believe it advisable to set it out in this opinion in its entirety. Omitting the title and signatures of the parties it reads:
"WITNESSETH: That
On the date of the execution of the agreement (November 16, 1955) all shares of stock listed in Schedule "B" of that instrument were owned by the appellant who had received them, from time to time, from the appellee's mother as gifts in appreciation for appellant's services in caring for the mother during an extended illness. The shares of stock described in Schedule "A" stood in the name of the appellee. The value, at that time, of all shares of stock encumbered under the agreement, is conceded to be as listed in the two schedules.
On May 5, 1959, appellee, with reference to an appraisal made *280 on January 23, 1959, of the real and personal property of both appellant and appellee, testified that such appraisal "setting forth that my property interests are worth $485,008.36 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." In all fairness it should be stated this appraisement included the appellant's shares of stock as encumbered by Schedule "B" of the 1955 agreement at a valuation of $69,303.25. It also included other items of personal property, then in her possession, which had been accumulated during the marriage, the value of which was appraised at approximately $5,800.00. By the same token it should be said that title to all other real and personal property listed in the appraisal, the value of which was appraised at approximately $410,000.00, stood in the name of the appellee, who had acquired some of it by inheritance and the remainder during the course of the marriage. Included in this remainder was $45,000.00 received and personally retained by the appellee when he sold the family home, the appellant joining in the conveyance, within fifteen months after the execution of the postnuptial agreement and subsequent reconciliation of the parties.
With further reference to the trust agreement it is interesting, and quite important, to note that appellee, in procuring the execution of that instrument, was able to induce appellant to encumber practically all of the property owned by her, then amounting to approximately $53,000.00, whereas out of the property standing in his name and valued at $410,000.00, the only contribution made by him to the trust, and encumbered under its terms, was property valued at approximately $25,000.00.
Having related the supplementary facts required for disposition of the first appellate issue involved, we now refer briefly to the undisputed evidence relating to the second, noting as we do so that, since the appellee made no attempt to refute it, this evidence must also be regarded as uncontroverted.
In connection with the second issue to the effect the trial court erred in failing to award more than the additional $2,000.00 attorneys' fees allowed after the first case was reversed and sent back for the trial court's further review, the record discloses that, throughout the course of this litigation, five well-recognized and competent attorneys of Topeka, i.e., Lester M. Goodell, Marlin S. Casey, Gerald L. Goodell, Harold Doherty, and James Benfer, were employed by appellant and actively participated in the defense of the divorce action brought against her by the appellee. It also contains a statement *281 showing the extent of their activities in this respect, as well as a photostat copy of the appearance docket of the case in the Shawnee County district court which contains approximately one hundred entries. Without detailing the contents of the statement or the appearance docket it may be stated these instruments make it affirmatively appear this has been a long-standing, hotly contested and tedious case, requiring the preparation of numerous motions and pleadings; extended research; consultations and conferences, both preparatory to and during the trial of the case; and the expenditure of further indescribable time and effort on the part of all the attorneys involved in the case. Indeed the evidence, no part of which has ever been contradicted or denied, is that, in carrying on appellant's case in the district court, five separate attorneys have participated in rendering legal services in her behalf, in the performance of which they have, in the aggregate, spent in excess of six hundred hours time.
The record further discloses evidence by four outstanding and experienced attorneys of Topeka, two being interested and two disinterested in the outcome of the case, that the reasonable value of the legal services performed by appellant's attorneys, in her behalf from the commencement of the action to the present time in the district court, would be all the way from $12,000.00 to $16,500.00. In this connection it must be remembered that these estimates as to the reasonable value of the services of appellant's counsel are undenied and uncontradicted, and that in no stage of the proceedings has appellee seen fit to adduce, or attempted to adduce, evidence to establish that a reasonable fee for such services would be less than that estimated by the witnesses to whom we have just referred.
With the essential facts established, especially since we have been cited to, and our own research discloses, no case of this court so similar from the standpoint of facts and circumstances involved it could be regarded as a controlling precedent, nothing would be gained by laboring our decisions or the reasons on which the six Justices of this Court participating in this opinion have unanimously decided this case must be reversed. Without doing so it suffices to say:
1. That mindful of the established rule the validity of a postnuptial agreement will be upheld where it is fairly and understandingly made, is just and equitable in its provisions, and is not obtained *282 by fraud and overreaching (See, e.g., In re Estate of Beeler, 175 Kan. 190, 193, 262 P.2d 939; Fincham v. Fincham, 160 Kan. 683, 687, 165 P.2d 209; Perkins v. Perkins, 154 Kan. 73, 76, 114 P.2d 804), this court, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly those relating to the mental status of the appellant prior to, and on the date of, the execution of the heretofore quoted postnuptial agreement, as well as those disclosing the disproportionate contributions of property made by the parties to the trust created by its terms, is convinced that at the time of the execution of such agreement it was not fairly and understandingly made, was not just and equitable in its provisions, and, of a certainty, was obtained by overreaching on the part of the appellee at a time when, according to his own verified statements and admissions, he knew appellant was a very sick and mentally ill person. Moreover, having held in Crosby v. Crosby, 425, supra, "that the uncontradicted evidence in this case relating to appellant's mental status on all dates in question was sufficient to preclude appellee from obtaining a divorce from appellant on the ground of gross neglect of duty." (emphasis supplied.), we are fully satisfied that her mental status on November 16, 1955, one of the dates then in question, was of such nature that she could not, and hence did not, fairly and understandingly make the heretofore quoted postnuptial agreement on the date of its execution. It follows such agreement cannot be upheld and that the trial court erred in holding it was binding upon the parties, settled their property rights and therefore warranted it in making a division of their property in substantial accord with its terms.
2. That fully cognizant of the rule (see Bennett v. Bennett, 175 Kan. 692, 698, 266 P.2d 1021), the allowance of fees to a wife's attorney for an efficient preparation of her case rests largely in the discretion of the trial court which will not be disturbed on appellate review when supported by competent testimony, we are nevertheless convinced that in the face of (1) all the facts and circumstances disclosed in Crosby v. Crosby, supra, and in this opinion; (2) the direction of this Court in Crosby v. Crosby, supra, that a further order should be made in the cause allowing reasonable attorneys' fees; (3) the uncontroverted evidence, as heretofore set forth, relating to the reasonable value of services performed by appellant's attorneys in the court below; and (4) the failure of appellee to produce any evidence whatsoever contradicting the *283 evidence regarding the reasonable value of such services, the trial court abused its judicial discretion in limiting its order fixing an additional fee for services performed by appellant's attorneys to an allowance of $2,000.00.
Based on what has been heretofore stated and held the judgment holding the postnuptial agreement of November 16, 1955, to be valid and determinative of the property rights of the parties is reversed; the order and judgment making a division of the property of the parties, based on the provisions of the agreement, is reversed; and the order limiting appellant's attorneys to the sum of $2,000.00, as an additional fee for services, is reversed, with directions to the district court of Shawnee County to give further consideration, in accord with the views herein expressed, to an equitable division and disposition of the property of the parties and to the allowance of reasonable attorneys' fees for services performed by appellant's attorneys in the defense of the action in district court.
It is so ordered.
PRICE, J., not participating.