Contractual Bargain Resulted in a Waiver and Enforced.
Marriage of Guilardi, Case No. H035037 (6th Dist. Nov. 7, 2011) (certified for publication) pitted the fees clause in a marital settlement agreement (MSA) against the Family Code section 2030 needs-based statutory scheme. The contractual bargain in the MSA won out.
The MSA addressed property division and child custody issues following a 16 year marriage, including two other significant features: (a) the prevailing party in any post-MSA dispute was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and (b) each party relinquished any and all past, present, and future claims against the property or estate of the other party.
Wife unsuccessfully attempted to set aisde the MSA, then moving for $157,650 in fees for attorney’s prior work and her efforts to set aside the MSA. The trial court determined that the broad MSA language was an implicit waiver of any claims and that it would be unjust to award fees where she unsuccessfully litigated an action to set aside the MSA.
On appeal, the Sixth District affirmed. After noting a divergence in judicial authority of whether statutory counsel fees are available to the party unsuccessfully challenging an MSA, the appellate court determined that the broad MSA language precluded a fee award to wife, with no exception being allowed in the waiver of claims clause. Wife knowingly signed the MSA containing the waiver of her right to statutory fees such that there was no conflict between Family Code section 2030 and the agreement between the parties.
Comments