Settlement Not Coerced w/ Threat to Expose Wife’s Affair to Kids

Tennessee law case summary on coerced settlement in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.

Alissa Owen (Formerly Haas) v. Darin Haas  – Tennessee divorce settlement claimed under duress

Alissa Owen and Darin Haas were married in 1996 and had three children.  The husband was a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, and the wife was a teacher.  While the husband was deployed in Afghanistan, the wife had an extramarital affair, and upon the husband’s return, she informed him she wanted a divorce.  He had his suspicions, but he had no confirmation of the affair.

The wife hired a lawyer and filed for divorce in 2011.  The husband hired a lawyer, and also hired a private investigator.  The investigator confirmed that the wife was having an affair, and the husband kept quiet about his knowledge.  At mediation, the husband for the first time confronted his wife with the evidence of the affair.  The two then had a private conversation, and the wife later claimed that the husband had “intimidated” her during this conversation.  However, she said nothing to her attorney or to the mediator about the alleged intimidation.

A few weeks later, her attorney withdrew from the case.  The attorney stated as the reason for withdrawing that the wife wanted to accept a settlement offer that the lawyer didn’t believe was adequate, reasonable, or in the wife’s best interests.

After the lawyer dropped out of the case, the wife represented herself.  The husband started to believe that the marriage could be saved, and even arranged a surprise getaway at Opryland Hotel.  But after the husband checked in, the wife refused to go.  This made the husband quite upset, and he consumed an excessive amount of alcohol in the hotel bar while sending multiple crude text messages to the wife.

Less than a week later, the two met at the office of the husband’s lawyer and signed a marital dissolution agreement which included a permanent parenting plan.  Five months later, she went to court seeking to have the agreement set aside.  A hearing was held before Montgomery County Circuit Judge Michael R. Jones, and both parties testified.

The wife testified that at the mediation, the husband pointed his finger at her and told her that if she didn’t agree to his terms, he would have her arrested and taken from her classroom in handcuffs.  She also testified that he told her to fire her lawyer.  She claimed that he also threatened to tell the children about the affair.  The husband denied most of these allegations, although he admitted to sending the crude text messages from the Opryland bar and stated that he regretted them.

After hearing all of the evidence, Judge Jones ruled that the wife had not been coerced, and that she knowingly entered into it against the advice of her lawyer.  Further, he ruled that the husband had not coerced her into firing the lawyer.  Furthermore, he examined the agreement and concluded that it was fair and reasonable, and in the best interests of the children.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that Judge Jones abused his discretion in not setting aside the agreement.

The appeals court first noted that it would review the case de novo, but that there is a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates to the contrary.  General principles of contract law apply to a marital dissolution agreement.  And under Tennessee contract law, a contract is unenforceable if a party proves that they acted under duress.  To show duress, that party needs to show that they were deprived of their free will by the unlawful act of another person.  In particular, both courts paid much attention to recorded telephone conversations in which the wife expressed regrets, and in which there was no evidence of any threats.

The trial court largely dismissed the text messages sent from the Opryland Hotel.  While acknowledging that they were vulgar, they contained no threats, even though the husband had consumed 13 drinks.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding of no duress.  Therefore, it affirmed this portion of the ruling.

The court then took up the claim that the parenting plan was not in the best interests of the children.  The appeals court carefully examined the plan and also affirmed the lower court’s ruling on this ground.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

No. M2013-00950-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Divorce Mediation in Tennessee.