Signed Settlement Agreement Under Duress
The court rejected Teresa`s request to cancel the real estate transaction contract and found that the agreement was fair and equitable. The court found that a real estate transaction contract is considered valid unless it is proven to be the product of fraud or coercion. In addition, the Tribunal found that Teresa`s assertion that her initials were falsified was supported by evidence. The court also found that the real estate transaction contract fairly shared matrimonial ownership and stated that it could neither choose nor choose the provisions of the agreement that were favourable and which were not. As a New Jersey lawyer since 1995, I understand that after the fact, many people feel they are “under duress” when they have obtained their property (or matrimonial) settlement Agreement. In fact, that is why your lawyer (the judge) will specifically ask during your undisputed hearing: “Someone forced or forced you to make this agreement.” Basically, it`s my experience that a lot of people feel like they`re concluding, under pressure, their divorce settlement in a Family Home in New Jersey. Later, after the dust has subsided, the individual feels “obliged” to make a deal. As a divorced lawyer, I understand what it feels like. Simply put, between high emotions, shattered dreams and rising legal fees, there is inevitably a degree of pressure when you make a comprehensive settlement in your divorce. In other words, as a lawyer, I have always found it effective to explain to my client: “You know you have a fair case if everyone leaves so unhappy.” Counsel for Thomas` divorce in Orange County argued that he had done nothing closer to coercion under section 1569 of the Civil Code because Virginia had not been incarcerated illegally or against his will and his property had not been unlawfully detained. However, Thomas`Orange County`s interpretation of the constraints within the meaning of Section 1569 is far too limited and does not take into account the right of decision that interpreted its language to apply to similar facts.
There is no need to contain a person or his property, as Orange Thomas` divorce lawyer contends. The threat is (1) the threat of unlawful detention of the persons mentioned in this section, (2) the threat of an unlawful and violent violation of the person or property of such a person. (1 Witkin, Cal.Law Summary (8th Edition 1973) Contracts, No. 339, p. 287.) The applicant`s actions are both an unlawful act and a crime, as well as the notion of non-violence. Moreover, “in any event, the question arises as to whether the person who denounced it by threats of right to contract must fulfil, in order to obtain such a contract, the quality of the spirit essential to the award of the contract, and has the contract been obtained? Therefore, according to this theory, coercion should not be verified by the nature of the threats, but by the mental state induced by the victim. (17 Am.Jur., Duress and Unue Influence, 882-885.) In Gross v. Needham, 184 Cal.App.2d, 446, the court states: “Hard, which contains anything that destroys his free choice and limits him to doing what is against his will, can be exercised by threats, imports or any kind of mental coercion.” Duress occurs when an ex-spouse is either in the middle of an illegal act or threatened to sign divorce papers.