Hall v. Hall
| Decision Date | 06 July 1984 |
| Citation | 455 So.2d 813 |
| Parties | Jo Anne HALL v. William B. HALL. 83-112. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Gusty Yearout and Joanne E. Boyd of Lorant, Harris & Yearout, Birmingham, for appellant.
Frank M. Bainbridge of Porterfield, Scholl, Bainbridge, Mims & Harper, Birmingham, for appellee.
Jo Anne Hall brought this action against her ex-husband for damages stemming from representations he allegedly made in connection with the parties' divorce. The gist of her claim is that the defendant induced her to "consent to the termination of their marriage" by representing to her that he wanted a divorce for "business reasons" and by promising that after the divorce they would continue living together as man and wife, when in fact he wanted the divorce so he could move and marry another woman. The plaintiff does not seek to have the divorce decree set aside or modified. Instead, she seeks damages for the embarrassment, humiliation, and reduced standard of living allegedly caused by the defendant's misrepresentations. The trial court granted the defendant a summary judgment and the plaintiff appeals.
The facts contained in the pleadings, depositions, and answers to interrogatories, when viewed most favorably toward the plaintiff, are as follows:
During the months prior to their divorce Mr. Hall convinced his wife that they were in danger of losing their home because of his business failures and that she and the children would be "thrown out into the street" unless she consented to a divorce. Hall promised his then-wife that if she agreed to a "business divorce" they would continue to live together as man and wife after the divorce and he would continue to support her as he had in the past.
Mr. Hall gave his wife a piece of paper with an attorney's name on it and told her to see him about the divorce. Mrs. Hall met with the attorney on one occasion for twenty minutes prior to the time when the case was set for trial. She claims to have told the attorney about the arrangement and that she did not want the divorce and that he replied,
A divorce decree was rendered based on oral testimony. Mrs. Hall admitted in her deposition that she testified at the trial of the divorce case that she wanted a divorce and that during the questioning by attorneys for both parties and by the trial judge she never mentioned the alleged agreement with Mr. Hall to live as man and wife after the divorce. The divorce decree awarded Mrs. Hall the family residence and all the personal property therein except for one television and a shotgun, which were awarded to the defendant. Mrs. Hall was awarded custody of the three minor children and was awarded $250.00 per month child support per child and $250.00 per The parties continued to live together for about three months until Mr. Hall moved to Atlanta. He came home on weekends for several weeks before he informed his ex-wife that he "wasn't coming home any more."
month of periodic alimony. Mr. Hall was ordered to maintain hospitalization insurance on the children and to maintain a life insurance policy on himself and to pay all the debts of the marriage except the mortgages on the house.
Mrs. Hall filed a four-count complaint alleging fraud, conspiracy to defraud, breach of contract, and bad faith. Mr. Hall filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint and pleading the statute of limitations, res judicata, and estoppel. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment on the grounds that the agreement which formed the basis of the plaintiff's claim was tainted with illegality and that, if her allegations were true, Mrs. Hall had actively participated in a fraud on the court in obtaining the divorce.
Agreements aimed at collusive dissolution of a marriage are illegal and unenforceable. Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam, 250 Ala. 316, 327, 34 So.2d 122, 131 (1948); Wright v. Martin, 214 Ala. 334, 336, 107 So. 818, 820 (1926). Such agreements are violative of both public policy and an Alabama statute prohibiting consensual divorce. Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masters v. Masters
...law will leave the parties in the position in which it finds them." Hooker v. Hooker, supra, 130 Conn. 51, 32 A.2d 68; see Hall v. Hall, 455 So.2d 813, 815 (Ala.1984). We decline to permit the defendant to profit from his admitted fraud by avoiding his responsibilities under the The defenda......
-
Neal v. Neal
...A participant in a fraud on a court cannot invoke that fraud as a ground for vacating the judgment obtained by the fraud. Hall v. Hall, 455 So.2d 813 (Ala.1984), and Shapiro v. Shapiro, 280 Ala. 115, 190 So.2d 548 Furthermore, any error in the January 30, 1997 judgment resulting from a frau......
-
Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Alabama
...termination of employment contract); Keeton v. Bank of Red Bay, 466 So.2d 937 (Ala.1985) (foreclosure redemption contracts); Hall v. Hall, 455 So.2d 813 (Ala.1984) (illegal contract to terminate marriage); and Kennedy Electric Co. v. Moore-Handley, 437 So.2d 76 (Ala.1983) (settlement AFFIRM......
-
§ 8.01 Personal Injury Claims
...Wohl, 785 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. App. 1990). Pennsylvania: Hess v. Hess, 397 Pa. Super. 395, 580 A.2d 357 (1990). But see: Alaska: Hall v. Hall, 455 So.2d 813 (Alaska 1984). Ohio: Scholler v. Scholler, 10 Ohio St.3d 98, 462 N.E.2d 158 (1984). Texas: Schlueter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 199......