Jorgensen v. Jorgensen – Property Settlement Agreement – Fraud
Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 32 Cal. 2d 13, 193 P.2d 728 (1948).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case involved a dispute to set aside a property settlement agreement based on fraud.
FACTS: Mr. and Ms. Jorgensen were married in 1924 and separated in 1944. A property settlement agreement was executed whereby H was to pay W $30,000 annually to support her and their children. W then brought an action for divorce in which H made no appearance. The divorce was granted and the settlement agreement was adopted by the final decree.
W then sued to set aside the part of the decree relating to the property on the basis of fraud. W claimed that certain stock in Jorgensen company was community property but had been misrepresented by H to be his separate property. H denied that the agreement wrongfully classified any community property as his separate property or that he made misrepresentations to W. The lower court entered judgment for H and this appeal resulted.
ISSUE: May a party be barred from equitable relief if the party failed to investigate bald faced claims by a fiduciary?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A party may be barred from equitable relief if they simply failed to investigate bald faced claims by a fiduciary.
HOLDING AND DECISION: H owed a duty to W to disclose the true nature of the facts because of the fiduciary relationship between husband and wife with respect to community property. The issue is whether W was deprived of a fair opportunity to litigate due to an alleged misrepresentation by H that certain assets were community. The classification of property as separate or community is frequently difficult. H at the time of the divorce was entitled to take a position favorable to him. W must take her own position but chose instead to accept bald faced made by H without any investigation. W was represented by counsel and she cannot now say that fraud was committed upon her.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.