Crawford v. Crawford, 940080

Decision Date02 December 1994
Docket NumberNo. 940080,940080
PartiesKenneth CRAWFORD, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Leslie Faye CRAWFORD, Defendant and Appellant. Civ.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

Mark Kelly Clark (argued), Grand Forks, for plaintiff and appellee. Appearances by David D. Dusek, Grand Forks, co-counsel and Caroline Clark, Law Clerk.

Patti J. Jensen (argued), of Lindquist & Jeffrey, East Grand Forks, MN, for defendant and appellant.

LEVINE, Justice.

Leslie Crawford appeals from a district court order denying her motion to vacate a divorce judgment which was entered upon a stipulated agreement between Leslie and her former husband, Kenneth Crawford. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the divorce judgment. We reverse and remand.

Kenneth and Leslie were married in 1978 and had four children who, at the time of the divorce, were ages 14, 12, 10, and 6. During the marriage, Kenneth earned a medical degree and completed his internship and residency. Leslie earned an Associate of Arts degree in Criminal Justice and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Sciences. In December 1992, the family moved from Grand Forks to Cavalier, where Kenneth accepted a position as a family practice physician with the Pembina County Hospital. At the time of their divorce, Kenneth was earning about $130,000 per year. Leslie took a job as a meat wrapper, and was earning $300 per month at the time of the divorce.

Shortly before moving to Cavalier, Kenneth told Leslie he intended to soon terminate the marriage. Nevertheless, Kenneth and Leslie purchased a home in Cavalier. In March 1993, Kenneth filed an action for divorce. Kenneth moved out of the home into a rental apartment, and Leslie remained in the home with the children. Before the divorce was final in June 1993, Kenneth moved back into the home with the children and Leslie moved to Kenneth's rental apartment. By affidavit, Leslie explains why she allowed Kenneth to do that:

"Kenneth came to me and convinced me to move from our marital home. He convinced my [sic] by telling me that we had received a Notice of Foreclosure and that if I did not move so that he could live in the home and pay the bills, we would lose our home as well as our vehicle.

"I believed him. I saw no other alternative. The foremost thought in my mind was for my children to remain in their home. As a child, I never experienced a permanent home and neither had my children.

"I wanted to assure that they could remain in their home and believed the only way to achieve that would be for Kenneth to move into the home."

Kenneth concedes he told Leslie they might lose the home. He asserts Leslie was failing to pay monthly bills and that he could not pay those bills and also continue to make house payments. But, Kenneth did not disclose that at the same time he was pleading financial distress, he was contributing generously to the support and entertainment of his companion and her children from a prior marriage.

When Kenneth filed for divorce, Leslie promptly secured the services of an attorney. While the action was pending, Leslie decided to dismiss her attorney and enter a stipulated settlement of the divorce. She explains:

"I believe, in my heart, that my decision to sign the Settlement Agreement was based upon the threats regarding our home and believing there was no way to protect my children other than to succumb to Kenneth's demands."

If Leslie had retained her attorney throughout the proceedings, she likely would have fared much better. In awarding spousal support, the trial court should consider a variety of factors, including the needs of the party disadvantaged by the divorce and the supporting spouse's ability to pay. E.g., Sateren v. Sateren, 488 N.W.2d 631 (N.D.1992). The court should also consider the disparate earning capacities of the parties. E.g., Wiege v. Wiege, 518 N.W.2d 708 (N.D.1994). Of equal importance is a spouse's role in contributing to the other spouse's earning capacity which was developed and enhanced during the course of the marriage. E.g., Culver v. Culver, 497 N.W.2d 431 (N.D.1993). Doubtless, Leslie's attorney would have highlighted the disparity in Kenneth and Leslie's earning abilities and Leslie's contribution to Kenneth's acquisition of a medical degree, in his efforts to have the court ameliorate the disparity and compensate Leslie with either rehabilitative or permanent spousal support or some combination of both. However, Leslie dismissed her attorney and came into court with a stipulation signed by her without benefit of counsel. No evidence was presented of Kenneth's income or other circumstances attending the marriage and divorce. 1

The trial court entered a judgment based upon the stipulation. Kenneth was awarded custody of the four children. Leslie was given visitation rights and ordered to pay $15 per month in child support. Kenneth received the home, and he assumed the mortgage on it. Their personal property was split between them under the stipulation and is not at issue on this appeal. Kenneth agreed to pay for Leslie's 1988 van, to pay $250 per month spousal support for a six-month period, and to pay Leslie's attorney fees. There was no appeal.

About five months after the divorce judgment was entered, Leslie retained an attorney and filed a motion under Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., for relief from the judgment. She filed an affidavit in support of her motion, stating that she was coerced into signing the stipulation and that she had a brain tumor in 1990 which, though treated successfully by surgery, rendered her incapable of fully understanding the legal effect of the stipulation. Following a hearing on the motion, the district court concluded that Leslie is "an intelligent person with a college degree and I have no medical evidence as to incapacitation or memory lapses or whatever it is." In its order denying the motion to vacate the divorce judgment, the court found no evidence of "fraud, deceit, coercion, or misrepresentation" by Kenneth. 2

In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion brought under Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., to set aside a regularly entered judgment, we do not determine if the trial court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief is sought, but determine only if the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of the judgment were not established. Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843 (N.D.1994).

Leslie argues the stipulation was so one-sided and unjust that it must be deemed the product of either Kenneth's overreaching or Leslie's incapacity to understand it. We agree that the stipulation is so one-sided and creates such hardship that it is unconscionable. Under the stipulation, Kenneth retained almost all of his $130,000 income and acquired custody of the couple's four children, whose primary care Leslie had provided throughout Kenneth's lengthy education and training. Leslie, having survived the brain tumor, acquired a degree that to date has not provided her with earnings of more than $3,600 annually.

The trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner. Dvorak v. Dvorak, 329 N.W.2d 868 (N.D.1983). We have said that a trial court has no duty to investigate the terms of a stipulated agreement to determine that it is objectively fair and equitable. Wolfe v. Wolfe, 391 N.W.2d 617, 620 (N.D.1986). While that may be a stronger statement than intended, it reflects the strong public policy in favor of prompt and peaceful resolution of disputes. It is the promotion of that public policy that generates a judicial bias in favor of the adoption of a stipulated agreement by the parties. See Fleck v. Fleck, 337 N.W.2d 786, 791-792 (N.D.1983); see also Clooten, supra; compare with Tiokasin v. Haas, 370 N.W.2d 559 (N.D.1985) (trial court not bound by parents' stipulation on child support). However, when it is disclosed that a judgment is so blatantly one-sided and so rankly unfair under the uncovered circumstances that courts should not enforce it, notwithstanding that the parties have stipulated its terms, Rule 60(b)(vi),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Toni v. Toni
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 5, 2001
    ...favor of the adoption of a stipulated agreement of the parties. See Laude v. Laude, 1999 ND 203, ¶ 7, 600 N.W.2d 848; Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833, 836 (N.D.1994). We have also noted a person may waive "all rights and privileges to which a person is legally entitled, whether secured......
  • Sailer v. Sailer
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 30, 2009
    ...may assist the court in determining whether the agreement is so one-sided as to not be enforceable. [¶ 76] This Court's holding in Crawford v. Crawford also supports a finding that the premarital agreement is unconscionable. In Crawford, we considered whether the district court abused its d......
  • Nieuwenhuis v. Nieuwenhuis, 20130394.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 17, 2014
    ...partner to take ‘unconscientious advantage’ over the other through the trust which is part of that relationship.” Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833, 836 (N.D.1994). In Weber v. Weber, our Court cited as authority Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations, ......
  • Christian v. Christian
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2007
    ...Weber, 548 N.W.2d at 783. A district court also may set aside a settlement agreement that is unconscionable. Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (N.D.1994). This Court has said "[u]nconscionability is a doctrine by which courts may deny enforcement of a contract `because of procedu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • § 4.03A Points of Disagreement and Other Concerns
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 4 Marital Agreements
    • Invalid date
    ...Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353, 593 A.2d 82 (1991). [291] Ryan v. Ryan, 659 N.E.2d. 1088 (Ind. App. 1995).[292] Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833 (N.D. 1994). [293] Rogers v. Yourshaw, 18 Va. App. 816, 448 S.E.2d 884 (1994).[294] Lipic v. Lipic, 103 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. App. 2003).[295] Marr......
  • Georgia's Evolving View on the Enforceability of Prenuptial Agreements
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Bar Journal No. 12-5, February 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...- The Emperor's New Clause, 115 U. PA. L. REV. 485, 516 (1967) (internal citations omitted). 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. See Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833, 837 (N.D. 1994) (Neumann, J. dissenting). 10. See, e.g., Blue v. Blue, 60 S.W.3d 585 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001); Hardee v. Hardee, 585 S.E.2d 501 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT