Collins v. Collins

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: SCHAUER; GIBSON
• Citation: 309 P.2d 420,48 Cal.2d 325
• Parties: Emily M. COLLINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert F. COLLINS, Defendant and Respondent. L. A. 24137.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1957

Page 420

309 P.2d 420 48 Cal.2d 325 Emily M. COLLINS, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Robert F. COLLINS, Defendant and Respondent. L. A. 24137. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. April 12, 1957.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 1957.

[48 Cal.2d 327] Vaghan & Brandlin, Vincent E. Lumbleau and Robert P. Schifferman, for appellant.

McLaughlin & Casey and James A. McLaughlin, Los Angeles, for respondent.

SCHAUER, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment against her in this action in which she unsuccessfully sued her former husband to set aside a property settlement agreement of the parties and deeds executed by plaintiff to defendant pursuant to such agreement. Plaintiff claims, contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, that defendant induced her to execute the property settlement agreement and deeds by breach of a fiduciary relation to plaintiff. We have concluded that to reverse the judgment would entail usurpative interference with the function of the trier of fact.

[48 Cal.2d 328] Findings and conclusions of the trial court, supported by the evidence, are as follows: In December, 1952, plaintiff told defendant that she wished a divorce because she desired to marry one Blankenship. In June, 1953, plaintiff told defendant that she was going to Nevada to obtain a divorce. On her arrival in Nevada she employed an attorney to represent her in connection with the divorce and a property settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant. About July 10, 1953, plaintiff's Nevada attorney wrote to defendant asking that a property settlement be prepared so that it could be approved in the Nevada divorce proceeding. After communications between plaintiff's attorney and defendant, plaintiff on August 13, 1953, went to Los Angeles and she and defendant executed a property settlement agreement; plaintiff executed deeds conveying her interest in properties to defendant and defendant executed

Page 421

a deed conveying the residence of the parties to plaintiff. On August 17, 1953, plaintiff, who had returned to Nevada, was granted a default divorce judgment which approved the property settlement agreement. On the same day she married Blankenship.

The trial court further determined as follows: Under the property settlement agreement plaintiff 'waives the necessity of * * * (defendant) specifically listing' properties standing in his name; such properties, it is agreed, become defendant's separate property except for the residence which becomes plaintiff's property. Plaintiff and her attorney began an investigation of the community property of the parties before the execution of the property settlement agreement, but plaintiff did not pursue the investigation because she was satisfied with the terms of the agreement. Defendant did nothing to preclude plaintiff or her attorney from investigation of the property of the parties. Plaintiff when the property settlement was executed relied on the advice of her counsel, and not upon any statement of defendant. Plaintiff desired to obtain the property settlement agreement in order that she could have it approved in her Nevada decree and in order that she could obtain such decree and be free to marry Blankenship.

Further determinations of the trial court are as follows: Defendant was unwilling, when the property settlement agreement was executed, to make concessions to plaintiff other than those embodied in the agreement. Until she executed the property settlement plaintiff had the opportunity, if she was dissatisfied with it, to seek a divorce in California and have her rights to the property there determined. Plaintiff gained [48 Cal.2d 329] an advantage by obtaining the property settlement and a Nevada divorce at an early date. '(U)nder the facts existing in this case, it is immaterial whether the property settlement agreement resulted in the defendant's receiving more of the community assets than the plaintiff received.'

Plaintiff relies on the code rule (Civ.Code, § 158) that 'husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other * * * respecting property, which either might if unmarried; subject, in transactions between themselves, to the general rules which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other, as defined by the title on trusts.' (See Civ. Code, §§ 2228, 2230, 2231, 2234, 2235.) Plaintiff urges that on August 13, 1953, when she executed the property settlement and deeds defendant had a fiduciary duty to her and was required to fully disclose to her the value and character of their property.

Plaintiff, however, had ample oportunity to investigate, with the aid of independent counsel, the character and value of the property of the parties. Plaintiff had contemplated obtaining a divorce for some time before she made the property settlement agreement and obtained the divorce. Defendant did nothing to hinder her investigation of the property or to cause her to execute the agreement precipitately. Defendant owed plaintiff no duty to force her to investigate the properties when she announced that she was satisfied with the agreement prepared by defendant's counsel.

The situation is similar to that in Jorgensen v. Jorgensen (1948), 32 Cal.2d 13, 22-23, 193 P.2d 728. ¹ It is there held that 'A husband at the time of divorce or separation is entitled to take a position favorable to his own interest in...