In re Marriage of Manzo,
659 P.2d 669(1983)


Facts: Prior to Renate Manzo's (P's) filing of a petition for marriage dissolution, she and her husband, Lawrence (D), had already signed a separation agreement. D was not represented by counsel when he signed the agreement. At the dissolution hearing D asked the court to set aside the separation agreement based on his unilateral mistake of fact, which he claimed now made the agreement not fair, just, and reasonable. The agreement provided that P would receive the first $60,000 of the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, and he would receive what was left. He thought the sale price of the home would net him at least $50,000 to $60,000. Now the split would be $60,000 to P and $10,000 to D. The trial court found the agreement unconscionable based on the fair, just, and reasonable test. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. P appeals.

Issue: Whether a court who set aside a separation agreement that is unfair, unjust and unreasonable even if there was not overreaching, concealment of assets, or sharp dealing but just merely a unilateral mistake by one of the parties to the agreement?

Rule: A court may set aside a separation agreement that is unfair, unjust and unreasonable even if there was not overreaching, concealment of assets, or sharp dealing but just merely a unilateral mistake by one of the parties to the agreement.

Holding: Yes. Judgment reversed. The Supreme Court, held that: (1) before court incorporates property division provisions of separation agreement into dissolution decree, it should first review provisions for fraud, overreaching, concealment of assets, or sharp dealing inconsistent with obligations of marital partners to deal fairly with each other, and then look at economic circumstances of parties which result from agreement, including determination whether, under totality of circumstances, property disposition is fair, just, and reasonable, and (2) separation agreement property disposition provision under review was not unconscionable.

Analysis:The court concluded that, consistent with both the commissioners' note and case law prior to the adoption of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-112(2), before a court incorporated property division provisions of a separation agreement into a dissolution decree, it was required to review the provisions for fraud, overreaching, concealment of assets, or sharp dealing not consistent with the obligations of marital partners to deal fairly with each other, and then look at the economic circumstances of the parties resulting from the agreement, including a determination whether under the totality of the circumstances the property disposition was fair, just, and reasonable. Finding that this was not the case, the court held that the parties' agreement was not unconscionable.