Opinion ID: 871210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Geraldine's allegations and arguments

Text: On June 28, 2007, Geraldine filed a motion to vacate the 11/28/03 Decree, or to set aside the corresponding property division, pursuant HFCR Rule 60(b) [2] (Rule 60 motion). [3] Geraldine's Rule 60 motion sought relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(b)(6). With regard to Rule 60(b)(4), Geraldine argued that the 11/28/03 Decree was void on the ground that Geraldine and George were never legally married. Alternatively, Geraldine argued that the property division portion of the 11/28/03 Decree should be set aside under Rule 60(b)(6), on the ground that the property division was the result of fraud on the court and undue influence. In her Memorandum in Support of Motion, Geraldine alleged the following facts in support of her claims. Geraldine asserted that George was legally married to Sylvie Bertin (Sylvie) in Honolulu, Hawai`i on October 2, 1989. Geraldine asserted that Sylvie purported to obtain a divorce decree in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic on February 2, 1995 (Dominican Decree). [4] Geraldine asserted that Sylvie was then a resident of Montserrat, West Indies, and that George was not and never had been a resident and/or domiciliary of the Dominican Republic, and did not appear personally or through counsel in any divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. Geraldine further asserted that she met George in March 1996, and that George intended to obtain her money and property. Geraldine asserted that George therefore made factual representations to her, including that (1) he was independently wealthy; (2) he had authored numerous screen plays for well-known movies; (3) he had serious and/or fatal illnesses and diseases; and (4) his uses of her money were to her benefit. Geraldine further asserted that George concealed from her that he had a criminal conviction, that there were unsatisfied civil judgments against him for more than a million dollars for fraud and undue influence, and that he had fathered at least nine children. Geraldine further asserted that, in 2002, George began spending a considerable amount of time in Thailand, where he obtained items of value and real property using Geraldine's money. Geraldine asserted that, in 2003, George advised her that for business and other reasons they should divorce, but that the divorce would be temporary and they should not tell anyone of the divorce. In support of these factual assertions, Geraldine submitted (1) a copy of George and Sylvie's marriage certificate; (2) certified copies of two separate Judgments, Guilty Convictions and Probation Sentences, sentencing George Dubie on charges of theft in the first degree, to which he pled no contest; (3) a copy of a civil judgment against George in the amount of $1,705,594.44 in an unrelated civil case; (4) certified copies of Geraldine and George's marriage license application and marriage certificate, indicating that Geraldine and George were married on May 1, 1996; [5] (5) a Variation of Separation Agreement entered into by Sylvie and George in 1996; [6] (6) a Report of the Death of an American Citizen Abroad concerning George's death; (7) an Order Granting Petition for Probate of Will and Appointment of Personal Representative in P. No. 06-1-0700, naming Nancy as Personal Representative of George's estate; (8) Geraldine's declaration; (9) a declaration, legal opinion, and supporting materials from an attorney in the Dominican Republic, concerning the validity of the Dominican Decree; and (10) a declaration of forensic psychologist Bennett Blum, opining that the Property Settlement Agreements were a result of George's undue influence on Geraldine. In her declaration, Geraldine stated, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. In or about March 1996, I met GEORGE []. From the beginning of our relationship, GEORGE [] made factual representations to me regarding his financial worth, his business activities, his children and his marital status. These included, without limitation, representations that he was independently wealthy, that he was the author of numerous screen plays of well-known Hollywood movies, that he had four children, and that he was divorced from his previous wife Sylvie []. GEORGE [] concealed the facts that he had a criminal conviction, that there were civil judgments against him, and that he had fathered at least nine children. 4. On or about April 30, 1996, a purported investigator named G. Kalani Long gave me a letter in which he advised me that he had conducted a background check on GEORGE [] on March 27, 1996; that he had checked publicly available records in the State of Hawaii with regard to whether GEORGE [] had a criminal record and whether there had been civil judgments entered against him and that the results of the investigation were that GEORGE [] had no criminal record and that there were no civil judgments against him. 5. GEORGE [] and I went through a marriage ceremony on May 1, 1996. From and after that date, I thought and believed that GEORGE [] and I had been legally married on May 1, 1996. 6. I relied on the factual representations as set forth above. Had I known the truth, I would not have consented to marry GEORGE []. 7. Shortly after my marriage to GEORGE [], he introduced me to Sylvie []. 8. Beginning around 2002, GEORGE [] began spending a considerable amount of time in Thailand, where, on information and belief, he invested in, purchased, or otherwise obtained items of value and real property, using money obtained from me. He represented to me that each item he purchased or invested in belonged equally to both of us and that all uses of and investments of my money created an ownership interest in my favor and therefore that they were of benefit to myself and/or would be returned to me. 9. In 2003, he represented to me that for business and other reasons, we should obtain a divorce, but that the divorce would be only temporary, that we would soon remarry, and that therefore, we shouldn't tell others of the divorce and should continue to live as we had throughout our marriage. I believed him and agreed to do so. GEORGE [] caused me to agree to transfer real property, personal property and other things of value to him via contracts, some of which became incorporated in what purported to be a decree of divorce issued by the [family court] and some of which were post-divorce decree transfers. 10. Not until months after GEORGE []'s death did I become aware that GEORGE [] had not been validly divorced from Sylvie [] at the time of the May 1, 1996 ceremony. 11. It was only after GEORGE []'s death in July of 2006 that I became aware how he had manipulated me through false statements, false promises, and other devices and techniques to transfer property (real and personal) and things of value to him in the course of our divorce proceedings. But for his manipulations of me, false statements, false promises and other tactics employed by him, and my trust in him, I would not have agreed to these transfers. . . . . In his declaration, forensic psychologist Bennett Blum declared in pertinent part as follows: a. It is my opinion that [Geraldine] was susceptible to manipulation and undue influence at the time she met [George] in 1996 due to certain factors in her background and certain life circumstances existing at that time. b. It is my opinion that [Geraldine] expected honesty and truthfulness from [George]; however, he engaged in manipulative, deceptive and misleading behaviors in order to benefit himself. Such behaviors included the willful presentation of false information (lying); and withholding relevant information, presenting partial truths, and/or taking statements out of context (paltering). Through his lying and paltering, [George] used several manipulative tactics and created situations commonly employed by cult leaders, scam artists, and perpetrators of undue influence. c. Because of [George's] lies and palters, [Geraldine] based decisions about him and his requests upon misleading, inadequate, and/or inaccurate information. d. . . . . [Geraldine] was made to believe that certain actions were critical to her husband's health and their happiness as a couple. This consideration overwhelmed all others, including the input from legal advisors or accountants. e. It is my opinion that [Geraldine] was subjected to the psychological and interpersonal conditions associated with undue influence. f. It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that all of [Geraldine's] major transactions involving [George], including property transfers, occurred as a result of his manipulation and use of undue influence tactics. This includes the period from their wedding until his death. With regard to Rule 60(b)(4), Geraldine argued that the Dominican Decree was invalid because the Dominican court lacked jurisdiction. Alternatively, Geraldine argued that, even if the Dominican Decree were valid under the laws of the Dominican Republic, it would not be entitled to comity. [7] Accordingly, Geraldine argued that her purported marriage to George was void ab initio because the Dominican Decree did not terminate George and Sylvie's marriage, making George and Geraldine's marriage bigamous. Geraldine further argued that, because the family court did not have a `lawfully married' couple before it, it was without power to enter a divorce decree. Alternatively, Geraldine argued that the family court should set aside the property division portion of the 11/28/03 Decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), on the ground that George exercised undue influence in obtaining the property division, and because the marriage was bigamous, and because [George] committed fraud on the [c]ourt. With regard to her allegations of fraud on the court, Geraldine argued that George conceal[ed] the fact that he had never divorced Sylvie [], thereby claiming a status and identity ( i.e., a married man) to gain access to [the family court] so he could use it as a device to improperly obtain [Geraldine's] assets. With regard to her allegations of undue influence, Geraldine asserted that George was an exceptionally effective manipulator. . . . [and] the scale of his deception and the techniques he used were extraordinary. Geraldine asserted that the Property Settlement Agreements showed that Geraldine transferred property, money, and other things of value to [George] for no consideration, all within an extremely short period of time. Geraldine further asserted that she understood and believed that the divorce was only temporary[,] and that she did not have her guard up because she believed the divorce was on paper only. Geraldine stated that her assertions would be supported when testimony is taken and exhibits introduced, and that all the particular ways in which the division was so inequitable . . . will be shown in detail at the evidentiary hearing. However, Geraldine did not specifically request an evidentiary hearing in her Rule 60 motion or her Memorandum in Support of Motion.