Opinion ID: 1855412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the decision of the trial judge was manifest error and clearly erroneous.

Text: ¶ 9. Wanda claims that she was coerced to settle by her own attorney. She alleges that her counsel told her the trial was going to be continued, until the night before, when Wanda not only learned that it was going forward, but that her case was not yet prepared. Wanda claims that she was adamant about not settling and instead insisted on a full trial, but which her attorney refused. Wanda presents affidavits of friends and family who testify that she was in shock by her attorney's directions to sit down and shut up while at trial and was in no condition to agree to a settlement. ¶ 10. John claims that the settlement of the divorce was handled properly as a matter of law and should be sustained. He cites Wanda's own testimony, given on the day of the settlement and after a meeting with her attorney: By the Court: Mrs. Montgomery, you have heard the dictation of the terms of your settlement agreement. Does this constitute your agreement? This is your agreement? By Mrs. Montgomery: Yes. By the Court: You understand you'll be bound by it? By Mrs. Montgomery: Oh, yes. ¶ 11. Since there are no accusations of fraud by an adverse party, the threshold question before this Court is whether the alleged coercion perpetrated by Wanda's own attorney falls within Rule 60(b)(6)'s meaning of any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. There was insufficient proof of any coercion by Wanda's attorney. While it is debatable whether Wanda could have received a better outcome had her case been tried to conclusion, that is not a question for this Court.