Glaser v. Glaser

Opinion

. LEE • SHPE tax ceunr

0 mama

ams M1620 PII |: so:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM CLERKorG9URT lv- mv/

MARK E. GLASER DOMESTIC CASE no. DM0595-17

Plaintiff

vs. DECISION AND ORDER

CHRISTINA CAMACHO GLASER

Defendant.

I NT RO DUCT I O N

This matter came before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Benjamin C. Sison on May24,

2019 on a hearing for Plaintiff Mark E. Glaser's ("the plaintiff) Motion to Set Aside Marital

Settlement Agreement and Divorce Daree incorporating the Marital Settlement Agreement. The

Plainti9 was represented by Jeffrey A. Cook, Esq. and the Defendant Christina Camacho Glaser

("the Defendant") was represented by Catherine Bejerana Camacho, Esq. Having reviewed the

parties' briefing and heard oral arglnunent on the issues, the Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiffs

Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and Defendant were married on November 8, 1986. Plaintitfmoved .out of the

marital residence in September of 2017. Attorney William Pesch apparently at the request of

both Parties, dratted a Divorce and Property Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement")

which the parties executed and which was incorporated into a Find Divorce Decree executed

by the court, in November2017.

ORIGINAL

Decision & Omer Domestic Case No. DM0595-17, Glaser v. Glaser

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set Aside the Divorce Decree and the Setdernent 1

2 Agreement on the basis that he was under extreme duress when the Settlement Agreement was

3 signed which resulted in a grossly disproportionate division of marital property and debts in 4 favor of Defendant.

5 In support of his claims of extreme duress, in the declarations Filed with the court, the 6 Plaintiff states that "he suffered many years of emotional abuse and mental abuse" which 7

8 stemmed &om a myriad of psychological and behavioral problems Defendant began

9 experiencing since the loss of her father sometime prior to 2009 and the loss of her sister 10 sometime in 2010. As a result of the loss of her father, and sister, Plaintiff claims that

Defendant apparently "spent much time sleeping during the day and staying up at Night" and 12

"stopped doing things one would normally expect from a spouse" such as "working as a team 13

14 to tackle normal household items". In addition Defendant had displayed erratic behavior such

15 as "not eating for sixteen to twenty four hours at a time", "shopping in the middle of thenight", 16 and "having arguments with store managers about displays she didn't approve of and generally 17 lashing out at anybody she came in contact with". Plaintiff also recalled an incident in July 18

19 2017 while traveling in California, when aler an argument between the parties, the "Defendant

20 left the house they were staying at and became lost for 12 hours." Plaintiff also claims that 21 Defendant's psychological issues included "her complete lack of attention, that she would 22 infrequently clean the inside of the house and would become obsessed with getting dirt out of 23 the tiles" and that "Defendant would also show signs of hoarding and never wanting to throw 24

25 any thing away resulting in mountains of clutter appearing in different parts of the house."

26 Plaintiff claims that as a result of Defendant's behavior and psychological issues, 27 Plaintiff became "impossible to deal with" and that he "simply had no choice but to get away CB

Page2 of 8

|

Decision & Order Domestic Case No. DM0595-17, Glaser v. Glaser

from her and have sanity in my own life". Moreover because of these psychological and 1

2 behavior issues, Plaintiff claims that "Defendant coils not in good faith negotiate a marital

3 settlement agreement and that she would not listen to my discussion about the terns" and 4 therefore "he had no choice but to agree tOwer mays or face the prospect of a Court battle 5 with an extremely psychiatrically unhealthy person".

6 Because he claimed he was suffering under severe emotional stress and duress at the 7

s time he signed the Settlement Agreement due to Defelldant's psychological and behavioral

9 issues, PlaintiE claims that he signed the Settlement Agreement without properly considering 10 its inequity. The Plaintiff claims that the Settlement Agreementis grossly inequitable in its

division of the assets, with approximately 66% of the :tuple's assets going to the Defendant, 12

13 and therefore should be set aside such that the pres an renegotiate a settlement agreement

14 that is more proper. 15 Specifically, under the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff receives 100% of the 16 Plaintiffs Xerox Pension Plan, the 2007 Honda Civic, and one-half (50%) of the balance of the 17 First Hawaiian Bank Account, Plaintiffs 401K with Xerox, and Plaintiffs Frequent Flyer 18

19 Miles. In return the Defendant would receive 100% of the Defendant's Government of Guam

20 Pension Plan, three separate checking accounts, the balance of their E-Trade Accounts, the 21 2005 Toyota Corolla, and one-hadf (50%) the balance of the First Hawaiian Bank Account, the 22 Plaintiffs 401K with Xerox, and the Plaintiffs Frequent Flyer Miles. The Defendant would 23 obtain 100% interest in the marital residence and assume all community debts associated with 24

25 the property. The Defendant did not obtain any spousal support. Overall, the Settlement

26 Agreement divides the community property and the community debt such that the Plaintiff 27

28

Pagc 3 off

Decision & Order Domestic Case No. DM0595-17, Glaser v. Glaser

receives property totaling a value of approximately $470,000 and the Defendant receives 1

2 property totaling a value of approximately $784,000.

3

4 DISCUSSION

5

6 1. Plaintiff fails to show that he entered into the Settlement Agreement under Duress or in the alternative, that the Agreement was Grossly Inequitable.

7

8 A divorce decree incorporating an integrated settlement agreement may not be set aside 9

10 or modified, absent a showing of hand, gross inequity, mistake, or absence of real consent.

Leon Guerrero v. Moylan, 2000 Guam 28, Lucan 1, Lucan, 2012 Guam 7, Seroggs v. Scruggs, 12 2014 Guam 2. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's psychological and behavioral issues that she 13 had been experiencing for many years during the marriage caused him to himself experience 14 extreme duress which compelled him to enter into a grossly inequitable marital settlement 15

16 agreement. Duress, as contemplated by the Guam Code, refers to instances where there is a

17 threat of unlawful force or the unlawful or fraudulent confinement of a person or property that 18 would compel a reasonable person to act in a specific way. See generally 9 GCA § 7.61 (2018)

19 and 18 GCA § 85305 (2017). Courts have extended the definition of duress to include actions 20 which destroys contractual volition of the party seeking to set aside a contractual agreement.

21

22 See In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 57 Ca.App.3d 736 (1976).

23 In the case at bar, Plaintiff simply claims that he was compelled to execute the 24 unfavorable Settlement Agreement because Defendant refused to negotiate any terns more 25 favorable to Plaintiff and therefore he had "no choice" but to sign the agreement or else face the 26

27 prospect of a "Court battle with an extremely psychiatrically unhealthy person" Courts have

28 held that even where the contracting party's consent was given while undergoing extreme pain

Page4»ofB

Decision & Order Domestic Case No. DM0595-17, Glaser v. Glaser

or great mental stress, the contract will not be overturned unless the contracting party was 1

2 shown not to have the mental capacity to contract and that the contracting party had no

3 reasonableperception of the nacre or terns of the contract entered into. See Howard v. 4 H owar d , 352 N.W.2d 280 (1984). Th e Com does not doubt that Plaintiff in this case was 5 undergoing considerable stress in wanting to quickly dissolve his unhappy marriage. However 6 all marital dissolutions involve stress, and perhaps in many cases, extreme stress, on the parties.

7

8 Moreover most parties are certainly hopeful and desirous of a quick and expedited dissolution

9 proceeding. Consequently, Plaintiffs motives in wanting to execute any agreement, whether 10 favorable or not, because of a desire to quickly terminate an unhappy marriage, is not unique or

exceptional.

12

Plaintiff does not claim that he did not have the mental capacity to enter into an 13

14 agreement wide Plaintiff In fact he states that he wanted to negotiate withDefendantbut that

15 Defendant refused or somehow was unwilling to negotiate in good faith because of her mental 16 condition. Plaintiff claims that he had been experiencing stress due to Defendant's mental 17 condition and behavior since 2009 when Defendant's father died. In 2017, 8 years after first 18

19 experiencing such stress and perhaps worsening and increasing stress during the time period,

20 Plaintiff asked Defendant for a divorce and moved out of the marital home. Soon thereafter, 21 Plaintiff sought to negotiate with Defendant for a quick dissolution of their marriage. Plaintiff 22 and Defendant sought the services of an attorney to draw a fonnad settlanent agreement for the 23 parties' signature. Plaintiff appears to be well educated and business savvy. Under these 24

25 circumstances, the court finds no legal duress with respect to Plaintiffs execution of theparties

26 muM sMement agreement. 27

28

Page 5of8

\

Decision & Order Domestic Case No. DM0595-17, Glaser v. Glaser

Plaintiff further argues that the Settlement Agreement should also be set aside simply l

2 because the terms are grossly inequitable. An agreement will not be set aside simply because

3 the terms of the agreement are one-sided or unfair to the other party. This is the case even if the 4 party we not represented by counsel. SeeScruggs, 2014 Guam 2 at 1127. The agreement may 5 be set aside or modified only if said agreement was grossly inequitable. See Leon Guerrero, 6

2000 Guam 28 119. The pres Settlement Agreement divides the community debts and 7

8 property such that the Defendant receives about 66% to the Plaintiffs 34% of the property

9 ($784,000 to $470,000). The Plaintiff maintains that this division of property is grossly 10 inequitable on its face. However, the Defendant claims that this division of property is not 11

grossly inequitable, citing to the thirty-one years of marriage between the parties, her religious 12

13 beliefs which make divorce din cult to reconcile, and the fact that she made no claim for, and

14 effectively waived, spousal support in exchange for an unequal distribution of the assets. 15 Furthermore, the Defendant claims that considering her history of unemployment, psychiatric 16 issues, and standard of living, there would have been an award of spousal support should she 17 have requested it, but that she accepted the current division of property in lieu of spousal 18

19 support.

20 Under Scruggs, this Court has recognized that a spouse may waive all maintenance and 21 support, or waive it as provided in an agreement, in exchange for a more favorable settlement 22 of community property. 2014 Guam 2 111120-21. Therefore, considering that the Defendant 23

would likely have been entitled to spousal support, the Defendant did not pursue any right to 24

25 spousal support, and the parties entered into an agreement for an unequal distribution of

26 property, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was an implied agreement between the 27 parties such that spousal support could be avoided.

28

Page 6 of 8

Decision & Qrder Domestic Case No.DM0595-17,Glaser v. Glaser

Furthermore, the Court Ends that the division of property in the Settlement Agreement 1

2 is not grossly inequitable. Although the Plaintiff is only receiving approximately thirty-four

3 percent (34%) of the community property, the Plaintiff negotiated with the Defendant over the

4 course of two months before arriving at the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the 5 Plaintiff received some value in the quick dissolution of his marriage, no ongoing payment 6

requirements to the Defendant, and a Settlement Agreement in which he is not required to pay 7

8 spousal support. Moreover, the fact that the Plaintiff is only receiving 34% of the community

9 property is not grossly inequitable on its face. See Klabunde v.Klabunde, 194 Neb. 681, 681, xo 234 N.W.2d 837, 838 (1975) (Ending no gross inequity when total division of assets is a 33% 11 to 67% split) and Cranford v. Crawford,No. 259108, 2006 WL 1330321 (Mich. Ct. App. May 12

16, 2006) (finding no gross inequity with 39% to 61% split). Considering the parties' ongoing 13

14 negotiations, and the value that the Plaintiff likely gained from having a faster divorce where he

15 is not required to make ongoing payments, the Court finds that the division of community 16 property under the Settlement Agreement is not grossly inequitable.

17

18

19 11. The circumstances surrounding the Plaintiffs agreeing to the Settlement Agreement are not exceptional or extraordinary such that relief is warranted 20 under GRCP 60(b)(6)- 21

22 The Plaintiff moves Linder Rule 60(b)(6) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure for relief

23 from the Settlement Agreement. The Guam Supreme Court in Mariano v. Surly, stated that for

24 relief under GRCP 50(b)(6) there must be "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which 25 are not addressed by the other subsections of the rule." 2010 Guam 2111133-34 (citing Brown v.

26

Eastman Kodak Co., 2000 Guam 301114). In addition to showing an extraordinary set of facts, 27

28 the movant must also show "a meritorious case, that substantial injustice wouldotherwise

Page 7 off

4 L Y

Decision & Order Domestic Case No. DM0595-17, Glaser v. Glaser

result, and that it would be appropriate to set aside default so that the case can proceed to the

l

2 merits." Id. at1125. The Plaintiff argues that the circumstances in this case rise to exceptional or

3 extraordinary circmnstances as his need to quickly divorce the Defendant due to her

4

psychological and behavioral issues compelled him him to agree to the terns of the unfavorable

5

Settlement Agreement. As we indicated in the above analysis, the claimed extreme stress

6

7

experienced by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of legal duress and do not constitute exceptional

8 or extraordinary circumstances. Also because the terms of the marital settlement agreement are

9 not grossly disproportionate, allowing the terms of the marital settlement agreement to stand 10 will not result in substantial injustice to Plaintiff The Court finds that relief under GRCP

60(b)(6) is not warranted.

12

13

14 CONCLUSION 15

16 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

17 l . DENIES the Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside Marital Settlement Agreement and Divorce 18 Decrees Pursuant to GRCP Rule 60(b), 19 2. ORDERS the Plaintiff to comply with the terms and conditions of the Marital Settlement 20 Agreement arid Divorce Decrees, and 21 3. ORDERS the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's attorneys' fees and costs with respect to this

22 motion.

23

24 IT IS so ORDERED AllB2 02ll19 25

26 » sERvicE VIA COURT BOX

27 IaniumvmdulHIIXIGQUNONII mums mono was roan m m

manof

Q H01 AlsLE

r

.C_ SISON

28 (r̀ Magistrate Judge, Superior Court of Guam : y QF _

nm T&m26'"Fm Page 8 o f 8

~ . . m . € £ £ £~.,Gunn or