Opinion ID: 1156114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: is the property settlement agreement void as against public policy?

Text: The appellant raises in her second proposition that the purported property settlement agreement and purported consent decree based thereon should be vacated and set aside for the reason that the consideration therefor was illegal. The appellant directs attention to item number 14 in the Property Settlement Agreement which states as follows: Defendant will express her desire to the Oklahoma District Attorney that she desires to dismiss the pending criminal case as to Vernon E. Pellow, Jr. only. [9] Appellant states that bargains for the compromising of crime or stifling of the prosecution thereto, are universally disapproved in all jurisdictions. She alleges that the decree of divorce entered August 31, 1983, is founded upon a purported property settlement agreement which is based upon illegal consideration. Appellant cites 12 O.S. 1981 §§ 211-212 in support of her proposition. It appears that she is referring to 15 O.S. 1981 §§ 211-212. 15 O.S. § 212 states: All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or wilfull injury to person or property of another or violation of law, whether wilfull or negligent, are against the policy of the law. We first note that the appellee is not seeking to enforce this portion of the contract. Further, we do not find that the property agreement had as its primary end, intention or aim, the exoneration of the appellee from criminal liability. In this agreement we have legal promises on one side being wholly supported by legal promises on the other side, and the alleged illegal portion of the agreement does not go to its essence. We find the entire agreement before us is not rendered void because a severable clause therein may be against public policy. [10]