Court Opinion

ID: 9538167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:31:35.870151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:35.735371
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice
(concurring specially) :
The Court has reversed the judgment of the trial court which modified the contract and has affirmed the trial court’s finding that the contract between the parties is void and unenforceable because of the *925wife’s overreaching. This appears to be a reasonable amalgamation of this Court’s prior decisions in Sande v. Sande, 83 Idaho 233, 360 P.2d 998 (1961), which permitted a wife to void a marital contract for overreaching where there was no fraud, and Suter v. Suter, 97 Idaho 461, 546 P.2d 1169 (1976), which demands that spouses be treated equally. The effect of such a judgment, it seems to me, will leave these divorced parties in status quo ante; their property and support rights and obligations are not settled, either by valid contract or by court decree. If the parties are unable to renegotiate a settlement contract regarding those aspects of property and support rights voided by our decision today, further proceedings will be necessary in order to make an equitable distribution of their property and a determination of any support rights and obligations authorized by I.C. §§ 32-706, -712, and the prior decisions of this Court.