FAMILY LAW – Settlement agreement,debts, unconscionability: Money v. Money (COA 10/16/2009)

Money v. Money
2007-CA-001750 10/16/09 2009 WL 3320594
Opinion by Senior Judge Harris; Judges Acree and Clayton concurred.

The Court affirmed an order of the circuit court assigning additional marital debt to appellant and denying appellee’s motion to find the parties’ settlement agreement unconscionable. The Court first held that the trial court did not err in assigning a margin loan account to appellant. Although the debt was not mentioned specifically in the agreement, the agreement was unambiguous in its assignment to appellant of all but the debts specifically assigned to appellee. The Court then held that CR 59.02 and CR 59.05 were not applicable so as to make appellee’s motion to assign the debt untimely. The motion was not one to alter, amend or vacate the provisions of the decree but rather, to request enforcement of the terms of the agreement. The Court finally held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the settlement agreement conscionable when both parties were represented by counsel through all stages of negotiation, appellee’s counsel drafted the settlement agreement, and appellee did not allege a change of circumstances that subsequently rendered the agreement unconscionable.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.