Hewett v. Zegarzewski, 8728DC739
| Decision Date | 07 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 8728DC739,8728DC739 |
| Citation | 368 S.E.2d 877,90 N.C.App. 443 |
| Parties | Janice Lynn HEWETT v. Ronald R. ZEGARZEWSKI. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Marvin P. Pope, Jr., P.A., Asheville, for plaintiff-appellant.
Westall, Gray, Kimel & Connolly, P.A. by Ronald L. Moore, Asheville, for defendant-appellee.
This is a civil action in which plaintiff requests that the court set aside a separation agreement and a property settlement agreement, upon the basis that defendant allegedly fraudulently misrepresented his financial condition when said agreements were reached.
Plaintiff-appellant, Janice Lynn Hewett, and defendant-appellee, Ronald R. Zegarzewski were married on 30 June 1978. There were no children born of this marriage. On 1 August 1986 the parties separated, and on 13 August 1986, they entered into a deed of separation in Haywood County, North Carolina. The agreement provided for a division of all the property which the parties owned, including both marital and separate property, as well as for an allocation of responsibility for their indebtedness. Paragraph 12 of the agreement specifically states that:
It is the intent of the parties that this agreement constitutes final settlement of all rights and interest arising from the marriage of the parties[.] [A] final settlement herein provided for is deemed to be an equitable settlement and distribution in lieu of the provisions of General Statute Section 50-20, and [each of the parties] expressly releases and waives any claims arising thereunder. In addition thereto, each party releases the other from duties and obligations of support and maintenance, including attorneys fees, and understand that this [a]greement may be pleaded in bar of any right or claim arising from the marriage between the parties. (Emphasis supplied).
On 10 September 1986, the parties entered another agreement in Haywood County, this one entitled "Stipulation and Property Settlement Agreement," "for the purposes of settling and determining in all respects and for all purposes their respective present and future property rights, alimony, obligations, claims, and demands, ..." The agreement also specifically provided for the sale of the marital home at a mutually agreeable price, and equal division of the net proceeds derived from the sale between the two parties; an identical provision, in substance, as one contained within the aforementioned deed of separation.
The parties also made two other representations in the agreement, (1) that they had amicably divided between themselves all other jointly owned real property and their personal property, (a direct reference to the deed of separation) and (2) that they both further agreed that they were each fully aware of the assets and financial conditions of the other party.
On 12 September 1986, plaintiff filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida. In this petition, plaintiff requested the court to adopt and ratify the second agreement entitled "stipulation and property settlement" into which the parties had previously entered in North Carolina.
The court entered its final judgment of divorce on 2 October 1986, and incorporated each and every provision of the stipulation and property settlement agreement, the second agreement, which had in turn incorporated the first agreement, the deed of separation. The court ordered strict compliance by the parties.
Nearly three months later, upon becoming aware that defendant had allegedly concealed the existence of a separate stock account, and had allegedly transferred funds from their joint account to this separate account during the course of their marriage, plaintiff commenced this action seeking relief from the agreements. She also requested that defendant be required to truthfully and accurately disclose all assets owned by him at the time of the parties' separation.
When this matter came on for hearing, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, determining that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the issues, and that the Florida judgment was entitled to full faith and credit. From this order, plaintiff appeals.
On appeal, plaintiff requests that we consider one issue; to wit, whether the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Florida judgment was entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hutchinson
...dividing assets, which incorporated the stipulation into a judgment. Melton , 256 N.W.2d at 206 ; see Hewett v. Zegarzewski , 90 N.C.App. 443, 368 S.E.2d 877, 879 (1988). Consistent with the understanding that the fraud occurred within the proceeding, the dissolution decree and every propos......
-
In re Marriage of Hutchinson
...with equitably dividing assets, which incorporated the stipulation into a judgment. Melton, 256 N.W.2d at 206; see Hewett v. Zegarzewski, 368 S.E.2d 877, 879 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). Consistent with the understanding that the fraud occurred within the proceeding, the dissolution decree and eve......
-
Hresko v. Hresko
...could have been at issue in the trial), they, therefore, amounted to no more than intrinsic fraud. Id. See also Hewett v. Zegarzewski, 90 N.C.App. 443, 368 S.E.2d 877 (1988) (where court held that allegation that husband had made fraudulent misrepresentations as to his assets in procuring t......
-
Docrx, Inc. v. EMI Servs. of NC, LLC
...consideration of the court upon the merits. Id. at 624, 3 S.E.2d at 2. (Citations omitted). (Emphasis added).Hewett v. Zegarzewski, 90 N.C.App. 443, 446, 368 S.E.2d 877, 878 (1988) (emphasis added). Our Courts have continued to recite this general concept. See First–Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. ......