Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
An agreement involves parties who consent to perform a certain action in consideration of specific guidelines written in the contract that they sign. Although those involved expect transparency from each other, there may be duress and other crucial factors that may lead to lawsuits when discovered long after signing the agreement. For example, parties in an agreement may involve coercion or pressure others to sign contracts for their benefit, even without knowing they are causing harm. In Florida, there have been several cases involving contracts purported to be signed under duress leading courts to make decisions about such cases to establish whether the agreements should be voided (Bix, 2020). Two related cases involved Castro v Castro and Bate v Bate which included contracts purported to have been established under duress.
James D. Casto, Petitioner, v. Donna L. Casto, Respondent
Facts of the Case
The case involved a couple who married in 1964, dissolved in 1966 and remarried in 1967. While the wife had no job, she stayed at home with no children within their marriage duration. At the same time, the husband invested in the development of shopping centers. In 1977, the couple signed a postnuptial agreement stating that the wife would get the home and $100000. The husband was expected to pay the mortgage for a year and contribute to repair worth $5000 (Casto v. Casto, 1987). The contract states that the wife would enjoy health insurance, club membership, and credit cards. Additionally, each party would continue to own any property solely owned before the engagement. Each individual was also expected to pay their attorney in case of any dissolution proceedings.
One year after remarrying, the husband wanted the postnuptial agreement to be approved after filing for dissolution. The wife alleged the agreement was invalid and claimed to have signed under duress and deceiving action because she was unfamiliar with her husband’s worth. In return, the wife sued the husband for coercing her to sign the agreement to get permanent lump sum alimony, associated costs, and attorney’s fees.
Issues Considered
The court investigated whether the wife knew about the husband’s properties, including shopping centers, and if she was advised properly by an attorney. The husband was required to advise and reveal his worth to the wife, and the court assessed if that was the case. Finally, the judges considered whether any form of duress forced the wife to sign the contract by checking the evidence provided by both parties.
The Court’s Decision
The court decided that the agreement was null and void because the wife did not receive adequate advice concerning the husband’s worth before or during the time she was required to sign the agreement. The wife did not have independent knowledge concerning the income and assets owned by her husband, meaning the agreement was not based on full exposure of the real circumstances for informed decision-making. The court stated that the wife did not receive competent counsel assistance from an attorney and the agreement was unjust and unfair to her. She was awarded a lump sum alimony totaling $1.5 million as a five-year payment by the husband (Casto v. Casto, 1987). The district court upheld the judgment but stated that there was compelling evidence to suggest that the wife had the knowledge and adequate independent advice before signing the agreement. However, there was no substantive evidence to reverse the decision of the trial court based on the knowledge available.
Ethical Issues
It was unethical for the husband to state that the wife must sign the agreement lest they lose the house. This indicates that there was clear manipulation and coercion into signing the agreement where the husband purported to gain from the incident. In this case, one of the ethical dilemmas is that inadequate legal counsel could be grounds for nullifying the agreement. The wife consulted two lawyers; hence this can be considered adequate legal counsel.
It can be purported that the contract’s circumstances negated the legal advice provided. First, the husband has influenced the wife to fire her previous attorney. The second attorney, in this case, was only invited to advise about the format of the agreement and not to provide advice regarding the wealth and income of the husband. All these actions from the husband can be purported to negatively affect any ability of the lawyers to provide competent advice to the wife. Third, the attorney stated that he could not have allowed the wife to sign the contract if he understood that the husband was rich. Lastly, it was ethical for the wife to seek to nullify the agreement if she felt that there was duress or unfair influence during the document signing.
Bates vs. Bates Case
Facts of the Case
Paul Evan Bates met with Magda Jhovanna Bates through a matching website. The 40-year-old husband was divorced and a commercial airline pilot with a net worth of 4 million (Scales, 2021). The woman was 18 years old and in her second year of medical school in Columbia. Later during a trip, the couple had sex, and the female got pregnant. The husband paid for the abortion, with the family unaware of the premarital sex, pregnancy, and abortion. During courtship, the husband asks their wife to sign a prenuptial agreement. They never discussed the deal or negotiated any of the terms. A wife is not a conversant speaker of English, and she later sorts the agreement’s translation into Spanish, realizing some form of deceit.
Issues Considered
Later in May 2017, the wife signed a verified petition to dissolve the marriage with minor children. The wife wished to set aside their prenuptial agreement because it was reached under deceit, fraud, coercion, misinterpretation, duress, and overreaching. She says that the contract was executed involuntarily as a result of the timing of the agreement (Scales, 2021). The court entered a bench trial on the validity of their prenuptial agreement.
The wife testified that she was a virgin before the pregnancy, in which the husband paid for the abortion. She was raised in a strict Catholic background where they did not approve of premarital sex or abortion. She says she was in pain and distress and only signed because she could barely walk and was bleeding. She did not read the agreement before signing it and later realized its content after translating it into Spanish. The wife testified that the husband told her repeatedly to sign the deal declaring that she had to sign it as a requirement to enter the States. She later admits that she would have signed anything the husband asked because she loved and wanted to marry him.
The Court’s Decision
The court concluded that coercion was present as Mrs. Bates was in a vulnerable emotional position at the time of the agreement having the wedding scheduled a couple of weeks later. The immigration date was also set shortly after the marriage, and the demand to sign the agreement was high. The court also indicated that due to her religious beliefs, she was not allowed to have sex on their wedding day and had an abortion resulting in more emotional stress and duress. Finally, the court discounted the husband’s testimony that the parties had negotiated and discussed the agreement (Scales, 2021). Here no meaningful negotiations had occurred with complex legal language resulting in barriers.
Ethical Issues
It was unethical for the parties to pressure each other into a contract. The husband took advantage of the current situation to get the wife to sign the agreement. The husband did not consider the language barrier between him and the wife. Discussion of the deal was not present, and the husband’s act pressured the wife into the accord portraying selfish reasons. It is ethical for that wife to avoid the contract after realizing that the husband deceived her into signing it. Another ethical issue identified is that as much as Mrs. Bates was in a tough situation, she should have known that this agreement was important. She should have tried to at least discuss it with Mr. Bates to be able to understand it fully before signing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision concerning the contract signed on duress can vary depending on the reasoning used by the judges. For instance, failure to receive adequate legal advice is not sufficient to nullify an agreement, but how the partners influence the probability of receiving such counsel can determine the court’s final decision. In the two cases, different courts provide the same judgments but with different reasoning, which signifies the subjectivity of the ruling to establish whether agreements were signed under duress or not.
References
Casto v. Casto. (1987). 66325 (458 So.2d 290) –District court of appeal of Florida, fourth district. Web.
Scales, J. (2021). Bates v. Bates. Legal research tools from Casetext. Web.
Bix, B. H. (2020). Family law: Values beyond choice and autonomy? Law and Philosophy, 40(2), 163–183. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.