Settling-Seperation-Agreements

Setting Aside Separation Agreements in Maryland

In Maryland, it is very challenging to set aside a Marital Settlement Agreement, commonly also known as a Separation Agreement or Separation and Property Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Separation Agreement”). While there are numerous ways to attack a Maryland Separation Agreement, the likelihood of success is low, primarily because under Maryland law Separation Agreements are presumptively valid. The law presumes that every adult has the capacity to enter into a valid contract, and a Separation Agreement is considered a contract in Maryland.

The spouse attacking the Separation Agreement has the burden of proving that it should be set aside. If the Separation Agreement was obtained by fraud, duress, undue influence, or collusion, it will not be enforceable. Also, if the terms of the Separation Agreement shock the conscience of the court, the court may refuse to enforce it or may limit the application of any unconscionable terms.

To establish fraud, the attacking spouse must prove that the other spouse either concealed or misrepresented a material fact in order to induce him or her to enter into the Separation Agreement. Duress, coercion, and undue influence are proven by showing that the spouse attacking the Separation Agreement was compelled by the other spouse to do something that he or she wouldn’t otherwise have done.

If a spouse can convince the court that, due to force, threats, or coercive promises, he or she was unable to exert his or her free will with regard to consenting to the terms of the Separation Agreement, then he or she may be able to establish duress, coercion, or undue influence and have the Separation Agreement set aside. It is likely that the only evidence of these types of wrongdoing is the attacking spouse’s testimony, which probably will be contradicted by the other spouse’s testimony.

Another attack to a Maryland Separation Agreement is that its terms are unconscionable. In other words, the Separation Agreement is shockingly one-sided. For example, Maryland appellate courts have found separation agreements inequitable where one spouse received less than two percent of the total assets.

The attacking spouse also may claim incompetence or lack of capacity to contract. In a recent Maryland Court of Special Appeals case, the wife claimed she was incompetent based on her mental distress and her long history of bi-polar disorder. Ultimately, the Court found no evidence of permanent incompetence or incompetence at the time the wife signed the Separation Agreement. Because she had maintained employment, controlled her own checking account, made her own car payments, and entered into a contract to purchase real property, the Court deemed her competent to enter into the Maryland Separation Agreement.

If the attacking spouse can establish the existence of a “confidential relationship” between the spouses, then the burden shifts to the spouse who seeks enforcement of the Separation Agreement to establish its fairness and reasonableness. A confidential relationship occurs when one person reasonably expects the other to act in his or her best interests. The existence of a confidential relationship imposes a duty on the relied upon spouse to act fairly.

Establishing a confidential relationship will depend upon the facts. Some factors considered in determining whether a confidential relationship exists are age, intelligence, mental condition, education, business acumen, health, and degree of dependence on the other spouse. If the spouse who seeks to set aside the Maryland Separation Agreement is vulnerable, easily manipulated, poorly educated, unsophisticated, trusting, or in poor physical or mental health, there may be a greater likelihood of establishing a confidential relationship. There may be a greater chance that a confidential relationship exists if the attacking spouse has no (or little) familiarity with the marital assets, investments, expenses, and other financial matters.

Conversely, if the attacking spouse sought even minor changes to the Separation Agreement before it was signed, that action likely decreases the chances that a court will find the existence of a confidential relationship because that spouse demonstrated a lack of reliance on the other spouse to do what is fair by negotiating terms. If a confidential relationship is established, that merely shifts the burden to the relied upon spouse to prove the fairness and reasonableness of the Separation Agreement. No reported Maryland case has held that the existence of a confidential relationship alone is sufficient to set aside a Maryland Separation Agreement.

Furthermore, the spouse seeking to invalidate a Maryland Separation Agreement may have waived that right by accepting benefits under it. Once the spouse suspects a basis to set aside the Separation Agreement, he or she must stop accepting benefits under the Separation Agreement in order to improve the likelihood of setting it aside.

Contact our Maryland divorce lawyers (301-309-9002; ask@kamkarilaw.com) for an appointment if you are seeking experienced representation for reaching a Separation Agreement or an aggressive Maryland lawyer to represent you in your divorce case.

Share this post

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on print
Share on email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

DISCLAIMER

No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website. Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Kamkari Law Offices (hereinafter “Law Offices”) or one of its lawyer(s) creates an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices and/or any of its attorneys. You will become a client of the Law Offices only if and when you sign and engagement agreement setting forth the scope of the Law Offices’ engagement, the fee arrangement and other relevant matters. As a matter of policy, the Law Offices does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed retainer agreement or engagement letter. (The Law Offices may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.)

No Confidentiality. You may not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to the Law Offices. Your use of this website does not make you a client of the Law Offices or even a prospective client of the Law Offices. If you have confidential information that you would like to give to any lawyer affiliated with the Law Offices, please communicate with one if the Law Offices’ lawyer(s) in person or by telephone–not by filling in any form on this website or by sending an unsolicited email to the Law Offices or any of its lawyer(s).

No Legal Advice Intended. This website includes general information about legal issues and developments in the law. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and must not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You need to contact a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for advice on specific legal issues problems.

No Intent to Refer Matters to Other Firms. Unless otherwise expressly stated on a particular page of the Law Offices’ website, retainer agreement, or engagement letter, Law Offices intends to act as primary counsel in representing clients who retain the Attorney.

Photographs. The photographs on this website may not be of actual lawyer(s), employees and/or clients of the Law Offices unless otherwise noted. The cost of this website is paid for by the Law Offices and not by any other lawyer or firm.

No Guarantee of Results. Some of the case summaries, reports of past results and individual lawyer biographies on this website describe past matters handled for clients of the Law Offices. These descriptions are meant only to provide information to the public about the activities and experience of our lawyer(s). They are not intended as a guarantee that the same or similar results can be obtained in every matter undertaken by our lawyer(s). You must not assume that a similar result can be obtained in a legal matter of interest to you. The outcome of a particular matter can depend on a variety of factors—including the specific factual and legal circumstances, the ability of opposing counsel, and, often, unexpected developments beyond the control of any client or lawyer.
No Claim of Expertise or Board Certification. This website lists areas in which lawyer(s) of the Law Offices practice. In so doing, no Law Offices’ lawyer makes a claim of “expertise,” “specialization” or “board certification.” Any lawyer(s) of the Law Offices who are properly board certified in a practice area have so indicated in their biographies.

IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service requirements, this is to inform you that any information on this website that could be construed as United States tax advice is not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed on this website. See IRS Circular 230.

No Tax Advice. This website is not intended to provide any tax advice. Furthermore Law Offices does not provide tax advice to any client and an services of accountant(s) should be utilized regarding any tax questions.

Links to Third Party Websites. As a convenience, this website provides links to various third-party websites. Such linked websites are not under the control of the Law Offices, and the Law Offices assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of such websites.

Authorized Practice of Law. The jurisdictions in which each of the Law Offices’ lawyer(s) are licensed to practice are Maryland and the District of Columbia. The ability of any Law Offices’ lawyer to engage in any activities for a client outside of that lawyer’s state(s) of licensure is subject to state statutes, professional standards and court rules. The Law Offices does not seek, and this website is not intended to solicit, legal engagements in jurisdictions outside of our lawyer(s)’ states of licensure when such engagements would constitute the unauthorized practice of law in any jurisdiction. In certain occasions the Law Offices may engage and/or employ of-counsel in other jurisdictions should it be necessary to represent the client outside of Maryland and the Washington, DC.

Responsible Lawyer. The Law Offices lawyer responsible for the content of this website is Afshin Shane Kamkari, Esq.

Bona Fide Office. The Law Offices operates a bona fide office at 10411 Motor City Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817.
Copyright. Copyright © by Kamkari Law Offices. All rights reserved. You may download and print out any part of this website for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other reproduction or retransmission of the contents of this website without our prior written consent is prohibited.