Title: Coleman v. Coleman

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

681 P.2d 1269 (1984) Melanie A. COLEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dennis D. COLEMAN, Defendant and Respondent. No. 18579. Supreme Court of Utah. April 30, 1984. Bradley H. Parker, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant. *1270 David E. Yocom, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent. HALL, Chief Justice: Plaintiff Melanie Coleman appeals an order denying her petition to modify the property settlement provisions of her decree of divorce. Plaintiff and defendant were married on June 5, 1975. Soon thereafter, defendant made a downpayment on a building lot using money he had earned prior to the marriage. He obtained a construction loan and proceeded, with the help primarily of his father, to build a house. Plaintiff participated very little in the actual construction of the house. She did, however, contribute funds toward the repayment of the construction loan, at least while she and defendant were married. After five childless years of marriage, the parties separated. Plaintiff retained the services of an attorney, Matt Biljanic, and filed for divorce on May 22, 1980. In the divorce complaint, Biljanic prayed that plaintiff be awarded, inter alia, a share of the equity in the parties' residence. As a result of the parties' separation and pending divorce proceedings, plaintiff became sorely depressed and sought the assistance of her family physician, Dr. Cole Young. Dr. Young testified (at the hearing on the instant petition) as to plaintiff's emotional condition at the time she consulted him. He described her as "very depressed with a little anxiety." He said that he counselled her to avoid making decisions during that time and prescribed a mild tranquilizer and an antidepressant. He also testified that he did not consider her condition so severe that she needed to receive treatment from a psychiatrist or psychologist. He gave his opinion that she was fully competent, enough so in fact that she could continue her employment, which required the handling of thousands of dollars. In addition to her consultation with Dr. Young, plaintiff also received professional treatment from a psychologist, Dr. Kenneth Coleman, during the pendency of the divorce. Dr. Coleman's testimony at the hearing was similar in most respects to that of Dr. Young with regard to plaintiff's condition. He described her as severely distressed and unable to look out for her future adequately. On the other hand, however, he acknowledged her capability to continue her demanding employment and to make day-to-day decisions. In anticipation of the award to plaintiff of a share of the equity in the residence, defendant had put the residence up for sale. When plaintiff learned that he had done so, she encouraged him to take it off the market and told him that he could have it outright. She testified at the hearing that her decision to give defendant the property was motivated by her desire and hopes that they could reconcile their differences and get back together.[1] Accordingly, she withdrew her claim (in the divorce complaint) to a share of the residence and directed her attorney (Biljanic) to prepare a stipulation and property settlement agreement (hereinafter the "stipulation") giving defendant the house as well as the equity therein. Biljanic testified that when plaintiff came to him with the request that he prepare the stipulation, he strongly advised her against giving up her equity in the property. When she refused to follow his advice, he agreed to prepare the stipulation as requested, but only upon the condition that she sign the following statement: *1271 Plaintiff signed this statement and the stipulation on July 23, 1980. Two weeks later, she signed a quitclaim deed conveying whatever interest she had in the real property to defendant. Biljanic further testified that had he not felt sure that plaintiff was executing the stipulation of her own free will and that she was competent to do so, he would certainly not have allowed her to execute the same. A decree of divorce, based primarily upon the terms of the stipulation, was issued by the court on July 31, 1980. Said decree awarded defendant the house and real property of the parties free and clear of any claim of plaintiff. Approximately thirteen months later, on September 11, 1981, plaintiff, through the assistance of new counsel, filed the instant petition for modification of decree of divorce seeking one-half of the equity in the real property. Her petition having been denied, she now seeks this Court's review. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the evidence she presented at the modification hearing established the invalidity of the stipulation, in that it showed that she was incompetent at the time she signed the said stipulation and that she did so under defendant's extreme coercion and undue influence. In view of the factual nature of this contention, plaintiff reminds the Court of its authority under Rule 72(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to review questions of fact in equitable proceedings such as these. Plaintiff's argument that she was incompetent at the time she signed the stipulation is purportedly supported by the testimony of Doctors Young and Coleman. As indicated previously herein, both doctors testified that at the time in question, plaintiff was under severe stress and should not have been making decisions relative to her future welfare. The trial court analyzed all of the evidence before it in this regard and made the following observations and findings: We agree with the trial court's analysis of the facts on this issue and its resultant finding that plaintiff was fully competent to execute the stipulation. Plaintiff's claim that defendant exercised undue influence over her and coerced her into executing the stipulation rests solely upon factual representations made by her during her testimony on direct examination. She represented that defendant had *1272 broken her arm during an argument over the division of the real property, and on another occasion had even threatened her with a gun. She claims that the coercive effect of such acts led her to execute the disputed stipulation. Plaintiff's testimony in respect to the involuntariness of her act was utterly rejected by the trial court in view of the overwhelming contradictory evidence. Plaintiff's own testimony on cross-examination as well as at her deposition contradicted her representations on direct examination. On both those occasions she stated that her arm had been broken as the result of a fall which occurred during an argument with defendant over his new girlfriend totally unrelated to the issue of property division or settlement. This latter testimony was confirmed by defendant. Plaintiff also testified during cross-examination, as pointed out previously, that her reason for giving the property to defendant was that she anticipated a reconciliation between them. In addition, she stated that defendant never forced or coerced her to contact her own lawyer and have him prepare a property settlement agreement, rather she did so of her own free will and volition. As to the alleged gun threat, defendant denied the same. The trial court summarized its view of the foregoing evidence as follows: Again, we hold that the facts and the evidence relative to this issue provide an adequate basis for the court's finding that plaintiff acted voluntarily and without undue influence or coercion in executing the stipulation. Plaintiff's concluding argument is that by showing incompetence and coercive conduct relative to the execution of the property settlement agreement, she has satisfied the standard governing the modification of divorce decrees.[3] This argument is, however, fatally presumptive. It presumes findings will be made in accordance with plaintiff's position on the foregoing issues. That presumption does not follow in light of our negative resolution of those issues. Thus, the argument fails. Our holding today is in concert with the standard previously established by this Court for modifying a divorce decree. That standard, articulated in a similar context, is as follows: We hold that plaintiff has failed in her burden of satisfying the foregoing standard. We therefore decline to reinstate the property rights she voluntarily relinquished. Affirmed. STEWART, OAKS, HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur. [1] This was not the only reason given by plaintiff at the hearing for her decision to give up the property. As will be shown infra, she also stated, in a contradictory vein, that she had given up the property because defendant had forced her to do so. [2] This statement was specifically made a part of the stipulation. [3] The standard is set forth in Land v. Land, Utah, 605 P.2d 1248 (1980); Chandler v. West, Utah, 610 P.2d 1299 (1980); Despain v. Despain, Utah, 610 P.2d 1303 (1980). [4] 605 P.2d at 1250, 1251.