Family Law Prof Blog

Editor: Margaret Ryznar
Indiana University
Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Friday, October 20, 2006

Case Law Development: No Duty to Disclose Pending Sales Discussions of Property in Divorce Settlement

The New York Court of Appeals dismissed an action to set aside a divorce settlement in a high-dollar divorce between Actress Lora Kojovic and her husband Neal Goldman, who owned a minority share of an Internet information service Capital IQ.  Wife signed a divorce settlement agreement in August 2004 that gave her nearly $1.5 million.  However, about one month later, Standard & Poor's purchased her husband's company for $225 million, with his share being $18 million.   Wife then brought an action to set aside the settlement agreement on the basis of fraud and unconscionability.

Wife argued that husband affirmatively misrepresented the liquidity of the company and the talks that were underway for purchase of the company.  However, the court disagreed, finding that husband had disclosed the assets and that it was up to wife to inquire further.  However, wife, who had been represented by counsel in negotiating the agreement, had acknowledged that she had the right to inquire further into the financial aspects but waived this right.

The court noted its "disdain for post-divorce claims of concealment" and found that "[T]he wife concedes, as she must, that the husband consistently and accurately disclosed the full extent of his minority interest in Capital IQ, an asset of speculative value at the time the settlement agreement was executed... That the wife now believes her husband privately harbored a more optimistic assessment of the potential value of his minority interest in that company, or even had additional information that he kept to himself, is irrelevant... wife has only herself to blame for her failure to inquire further. Such failure is not, however, a basis upon which to vacate the settlement."

"... given her professional background and the advice furnished by her counsel and accountant, [wife] should have been aware of the distinct possibility that Capital IQ would be sold," the panel held. "That she opted for an immediate and certain payout instead of the uncertainty of an eventual sale does not afford a basis for setting aside the agreement."

Kojovic v. Goldman, (NY App. Div. October 19, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited October 20, 2006 bgf)

Property Division | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Case Law Development: No Duty to Disclose Pending Sales Discussions of Property in Divorce Settlement:


Post a comment