.webp)
.png)
Spouses are often tempted to proceed with their divorce case without procuring legal counsel – in legal nomenclature, they are tempted to proceed on a “pro se” basis. Proceeding on a pro se basis tends to be particularly tempting when there are no minor children involved in a dissolution. Spouses think that they can handle the issues in a childless divorce – i.e. property division, alimony – on their own, and thereby save themselves a bit of money in the process. The problem, though, is that even childless divorces are often highly complex, and proceeding on a pro se basis frequently ends up being much more expensive for parties in the long-term. The reason for this is because parties who proceed without an attorney commonly end up in a worse financial position. In many cases, those who proceed without an attorney end up agreeing to terms which are poorly negotiated and likely could have been far better with the assistance of competent counsel.
The case of Gaines v. Gaines (2020) provides a powerful example of the importance of proceeding with the assistance of a capable attorney. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Outline of the Case
The spouses in this case decided to end their union in 2018 after a decade of marriage. The spouses decided to resolve as many issues as they could via private settlement, and by early 2019 they had put together a provisional proposal. Importantly, during the negotiation of the settlement agreement, the wife was assisted by counsel, but the husband proceed by himself at all times.
The initial terms of the proposal held that the wife would be added to the deed of the marital home (in place of the husband) and given 3 years to purchase the home outright. However, this version was rejected by the mortgage lender because the wife had no income at the time of the proposal; hence, the lender refused to change the deed as proposed. The wife went back to the husband and proposed an amendment: the husband would pay the wife a regular sum of alimony, and this would “correct” the income issue and allow the deed to be changed. The wife proposed other changes as well: the husband would pay the wife’s health and auto insurance premiums for 12 months, the husband would give the wife one of his retirement accounts in its entirety, and the husband would pay the wife $4,200 per month in alimony for 30 years. Again, at no point did the husband seek out the assistance of legal counsel.
The court accepted the settlement agreement, along with the amendments, and this agreement was incorporated into the final divorce decree. Importantly, the agreement wasn’t “merged” with the decree, which meant that the husband couldn’t “collaterally attack” the agreement in a separate contract law action. Even so, the husband ultimately tried to have the agreement set aside, as he eventually realized that the terms of the agreement were undesirable to him.
Outcome & Discussion
The court rejected the husband’s attempts to set aside the settlement agreement. This meant that the husband was locked into the amended terms which we agreed to. Many observers might view this situation as patently unfair. Given how lopsidedness of the final terms, it’s certainly possible to make that argument. But, this is one of the key reasons to hire an attorney. Although the terms of the agreement may have been unfair, the court saw them as things which had been fairly negotiated between the parties. The aim of the law is to give as much leeway as possible in the negotiation and execution of agreements, and so ultimately the court couldn’t overturn the agreement even though it apparently heavily favored the wife.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you would like more information about proper representation, the risks of going pro se, or another related topic, connect with one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
Image credit to https://www.epictop10.com/
.png)
