Hartle v. Hartle, 2012 UT
App. 312, Utah Court of Appeals, November 1, 2012
Husband moved to set aside an order which was entered based on a stipulation of the
parties. Husband failed to marshal the
evidence in support of his claim that the parties did not have a meeting of the
minds.
Husband argued next that he did not receive due process on his
Motion to Set Aside. The Court of
Appeals disagreed. The trial court found
that the Court’s hearing as to the enforceability of the agreement was
sufficient due process because it provided Notice and Opportunity to be Heard.
Lastly, Husband argued that the agreement was unconscionable. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement
did not shock the conscience. If fact, Wife's agreement to trade away alimony for return of her contribution in investment property was a reasonable trade.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment