Litigation

Where a spouse lies about her understanding and acceptance of a matrimonial settlement agreement in order to induce the court into accepting it and incorporating it into a judgment of divorce, that spouse is judicially estopped from asserting a claim of malpractice against her attorneys. Newell & Adubatto v. Hudson, Docket No. A-4813-03T1, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, March 16, 2005.

The defendant wife retained the plaintiff law firm to represent her in a matrimonial action commenced by the husband. On the day of trial, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The wife testified under oath that the settlement agreement was voluntary and that she understood the settlement agreement in its entirety. Thereafter, the wife failed to pay her outstanding bill and the law firm commenced a collection action. The wife counterclaimed, alleging that the law firm had committed legal malpractice by “forcing” the wife to enter into an insufficient settlement agreement. The trial court found in favor of the law firm on the ground of judicial estoppel. It held that the evidence presented showed that the wife, as an accountant, was a sophisticated party that was completely aware of the settlement agreement and its ramifications. It considered that the wife was aware that the husband's salary had a base component and a “discretionary” bonus that was usually the sum of $50,000. It further considered that the credible evidence showed that the attorneys for the wife fully explained the state law regarding limited maintenance for someone of her age and abilities. The court also considered that the credible evidence reflected that the wife was not misinformed or misled but that she simply “changed her mind” about the agreement after it was made.