Court Opinion

ID: 9711269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:27:43.432652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.269833
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. However, I hasten to point out that not every change in the valuation of assets which are part of a property settlement should necessitate the setting aside of the judgment. Only substantial changes such as the one experienced in this case should require setting the negotiated settlement aside. If a substantial change in the value of an asset takes place after the settlement has been agreed to but not approved by the Court, the parties have a clear duty to advise the Court in order to avoid unintentional inequities. It may appear to some litigants that once the settlement is signed by the parties, any substantial increase or decrease in the valuation of assets is merely the “luck of the draw” or a matter beyond the control of the Court. This should never be, since the Court has the ultimate responsibility to see that a fair and equitable distribution has taken place between the parties.