SIDDEN V. MAILMAN 529 S.E.2d 266 (2000) CASE BRIEF

SIDDEN V. MAILMAN

529 S.E.2d 266 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Judy Sidden (P), wife appealed an order and judgment, which upheld the validity of a contract of separation and property settlement between P and Richard Mailman (D), husband.

FACTS: P and D were married on 21 April 1979. P is a psychotherapist and holds a master's degree in Child Development and Family Relations. D is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine. D moved out of the marital home. P told D she was 'tired of fighting,' he could 'have it all,' and to 'draw up what [he thought was] fair' and she would sign it. D prepared a listing of the parties' assets and liabilities, which did not include D's North Carolina State Employees' Retirement Account worth $158,100.00. D claims this was an inadvertent omission. P and D met, reviewed, and discussed the listing, and then signed a one-page informal document which outlined the terms of a separation agreement. D retained attorney to prepare a final separation agreement, the Agreement at issue in this case. The Agreement was executed and acknowledged before a notary by the parties. At trial, D testified he did not see anything about P's appearance, demeanor, or behavior that would indicate she was confused or lacked the capacity to enter into the Agreement. D's lawyer encouraged P to have the Agreement reviewed by separate counsel and to take as much time as she needed to review the Agreement. P was in regular consultation with her business attorneys and an accountant from July 1996 to October 1996, she chose not to have an attorney review the Agreement. After executing the Agreement, P directed D to immediately take her to a bank so she could receive the funds due her under the terms of the Agreement. The parties have fully performed and complied with the terms of the Agreement. Several months later, D realized he inadvertently omitted the State Retirement Account from his listing of assets and asked P whether any adjustment should be made to the Agreement. D testified that P responded she was 'going to get more out of [him] than that,' and their conversation ended. P sued D. At trial P claims she was suffering from hypo-mania and was psychotic and out of touch with reality from the spring of 1996 throughout the events surrounding the execution of the Agreement until her 20 January 1997 admittance into the UNC Memorial Hospital, where she was placed under a suicide watch. P was on Zoloft before the execution of the Agreement. It was agreed by the experts that an over dosage of Zoloft can cause hypo-mania in a few people. D felt P was probably suffering from hypo- mania in November of 1996, but he did not notice anything to indicate P suffered from mental illness at the time of the execution of the Agreement. The trial court found that P was not out of touch with reality and was not psychotic during the contract period, and that P had capacity to contract. D acted in good faith. It found that the agreement was not unconscionable; any inequality of the bargain is not so manifest as to shock the judgment of a person of common sense, and finds that the terms are not so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no honest and fair person would accept them, and finds that the provisions are not so one-sided that P was denied any opportunity for a meaningful choice. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner