Van Orden v. Van Orden
| Decision Date | 03 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47857 |
| Citation | 515 P.3d 233 |
| Parties | Dexter C. VAN ORDEN, Petitioner-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. Christine M. VAN ORDEN, Respondent-Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Castleton Law Office, Blackfoot, for Appellant. Trevor L. Castleton argued.
Beard St. Clair Gaffney PA, Rexburg, for Respondent. Jeffrey D. Brunson argued.
This matter concerns the enforceability of a property settlement agreement entered into by a married couple prior to their divorce. Dexter Van Orden ("Dexter") appeals an intermediate appellate decision of the district court ruling that the property settlement agreement he executed with Christine Van Orden ("Christine") was void and unenforceable. Christine cross-appeals the district court's decision affirming other conclusions of the magistrate court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Christine and Dexter married in August 2007 and have four minor children born during their marriage. Christine works as a nurse in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ("NICU"). Dexter and Christine also operated a ranch during their marriage. Dexter performed most of the ranch's day-to-day business and Christine performed some of the ranch's bookkeeping.
In late November 2016, Christine told Dexter she wanted a divorce. This revelation prompted a series of contentious discussions regarding the dissolution of their marriage, including how the community estate would be divided. Dexter maintains that Christine's position on the division of property was clear from their first conversation—she wanted her "car paid for and [her] student loans paid off." He claims that Christine was steadfast in this desire, expressing it in subsequent conversations about property division. Christine does not dispute that she requested to leave the marriage debt-free with her student loans paid off and her vehicle paid for. Christine noted that she believed that agreeing to less property would make Dexter more amenable to negotiating child custody. In addition, both Christine and Dexter discussed their desire to avoid a "nasty" divorce. Dexter later testified during the trial that nasty, to him, meant "destroy[ing] each other ... [or] hurt[ing] our kids."
Christine and Dexter's discussions about the divorce continued into the late hours of December 21, 2016, and into the morning of December 22. A few days prior, Dexter had contacted an attorney to draft a property settlement agreement ("the PSA") dividing the community estate should the parties divorce. The attorney finished drafting the PSA by December 22 and Dexter drove to Christine's work that afternoon seeking to have her sign the PSA.
The parties’ narratives about the circumstances surrounding the execution of the PSA vary dramatically. Christine testified that she was very emotional when confronted with the PSA and completely unaware Dexter had it drafted with help from counsel. She stated that she read the PSA at least three times, each time finding some provision or term she did not understand. However, she did not verbalize any questions or concerns to Dexter at the time. All the while, she contends that Dexter paced back and forth, never straying more than about twenty-five feet from where she was reading the PSA. Finally, she stated that she told Dexter she would like to have an attorney read the PSA before she signed. She contends that Dexter, in response, told her that if she did not sign the PSA at that time "things would get nasty." At that point, Christine signed the PSA.
With respect to Christine's concerns about Dexter impugning her family name and her father, Christine expressed concern that Dexter would disclose highly sensitive details about her private family life, particularly allegations of childhood sexual abuse by her father.
Dexter, in contrast, disputed nearly every aspect of Christine's testimony concerning her execution of the PSA. For instance, he testified that Christine, far from being emotionally overwhelmed, appeared relieved following their conversation on the evening of December 21 and into the early morning hours of December 22. In addition, he stated that he did not "hover" over Christine while she reviewed the PSA, nor did he recall Christine asking for an attorney to look over the PSA before she signed. Dexter also claimed that Christine was aware that he had contacted an attorney to draft the PSA and did so at Christine's request. Finally, Dexter testified that he never told Christine that if she did not sign the PSA that things would turn "nasty."
As to the content of the PSA, it purported to "establish and determine the rights [that Christine and Dexter] shall have in certain community and/or separate real and personal property[.]" The PSA noted the parties’ intentions, including: "to avoid litigation and intrusion into their professional and personal lives ... which would otherwise occur if th[e PSA] had not been entered into by them" and "to protect Christine from certain debts and business risks associated with Dexter's ranching business." Additionally, the PSA provided that "Christine acknowledges that even though Dexter is receiving an uncertain dollar amount of equity in real and personal property transferred to him by th[e PSA], it is fair because th[e PSA] insulates her from most, if not all, of the liability associated with Dexter's ranching business."
Under the PSA, Christine received no real property but did receive the following items of personal property: a 2008 GMC Yukon vehicle, the furniture in the marital home, and her personal effects. In addition, the PSA insulated Christine from responsibility for any of the financial obligations of the ranching business and required Dexter to pay off the balance of Christine's student loans and the car loan for the 2008 GMC Yukon. The PSA did not address child custody or visitation.
Beginning in November 2016, concurrent with the parties’ discussions concerning divorce, Christine entered into an affair with a coworker. It is unclear when, precisely, Dexter learned of the affair, but he confronted Christine about it on or around January 1, 2017. However, he testified that Christine did not tell him directly that she had an affair until after he filed for divorce on January 11, 2017.1
Dexter filed his original petition for divorce on January 11, 2017. In that petition, Dexter did not request enforcement of the PSA and instead requested that the parties’ community property and debts be divided equitably between them. Dexter later moved the magistrate court to allow him to file an amended petition for divorce. Shortly thereafter, the parties stipulated to Dexter filing an amended petition.
In his amended petition for divorce, Dexter requested that the magistrate court enforce the terms of the PSA between the parties. Christine answered on April 14 and asserted affirmative defenses of duress and unconscionability with respect to enforcement of the PSA.
Following the amended petition and Christine's response, the parties engaged in extensive and acrimonious litigation concerning the temporary custody of the children. On October 30, 2017, Dexter moved to bifurcate the trial in this matter, seeking to have one trial on the validity and enforceability of the PSA and another relating to the custody and visitation of the children. The magistrate court granted the motion to bifurcate on November 2.
Subsequently, on February 7, 2018, the magistrate court conducted a one-day bench trial on the enforceability of the PSA. Both Christine and Dexter testified as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the PSA. In addition, Dexter testified as to the value of the real and personal property he received pursuant to the PSA and the outstanding liabilities of the ranch. The magistrate court also admitted a balance sheet, created in anticipation of obtaining an operating loan for the ranch in 2017, which indicated the total equity in the ranch was approximately $1.3 million roughly two weeks before the parties signed the PSA.
The magistrate court issued an order on the enforceability of the PSA on February 15, 2018. With regard to the execution of the PSA, the magistrate court found that "emotions were running high" at the time the PSA was negotiated and signed. The magistrate court noted the conflicting testimony concerning Dexter telling Christine the divorce would get "nasty" if she did not sign the PSA, and concluded that "[t]he court can find that [Dexter] did issue the threat as it is consistent with their prior discussions of divorce." It further found that Dexter's physical presence at the signing of the PSA did not overbear Christine's will, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial