Mecca v. Mecca

Excerpt

The defendant, whose marriage to the defendant had previously been dis- solved, appealed from the decision of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of dissolution. Prior to the commencement of the dissolution action, the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant an e-mail, which he did not read, which contained information relating to certain pending litigation involving the estate of the plaintiff's uncle. The dissolu- tion judgment incorporated the parties' separation agreement, in which the defendant expressly waived any right to proceeds to be received by the plaintiff in the future as a result of the estate litigation. More than four months later, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment, claiming that the judgment was obtained as a result of fraudulent misrep- resentations by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff failed to disclose her receipt of an inheritance related to a settlement of the estate litigation. The court denied the motion, finding that the defendant chose not to read the documents regarding the litigation, which were disclosed by the plaintiff, and that there was no fraud on the part of the plaintiff. On the defendant's appeal, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it applied an incorrect legal standard in denying his motion to open: contrary to the defendant's claim, the court did not improperly assign him a duty of due diligence; the court simply acknowl- edged that a party to a dissolution action cannot ignore documents that were appropriately delivered to him, only to later claim that the disclosed potential asset was fraudulently withheld from him, which was particu- larly true in the present case, where the defendant had ample time and opportunity to review the disclosures, the plaintiff informed the defendant of the potential asset, the defendant signed a separation agreement wherein he waived any right to the potential asset, and the separation agreemen