- 38 -
Alice Berger and her attorney had an opportunity to show the
Chancery Court why Alice should not be ordered to sign the joint
return; she was ordered to show cause. Although Alice Berger
testified that her attorney told her--and that she believed--the
Chancery Court had ordered her to sign the return, the Chancery
Court's order was not entered into evidence, and no one else who
testified had personal knowledge of whether she was ordered to
sign the return.
As a result, we're not sure whether Alice Berger signed the
return under a court order or on her attorney's advice. If she
signed the return on her attorney's advice, we would be reluctant
to intrude into the attorney-client relationship. If the
Chancery Court ordered her to sign the return, that would appear
to have happened because she failed to show cause why she should
not be ordered to sign it. Without a showing of abuse of
discretion or threat of improper sanction, we would be reluctant
to impugn the Chancery Court's authority by construing its
exercise to have been improper or wrongful. See Groom v.
Mortimer Land Co., 192 F. 849, 852-853 (5th Cir. 1912) (execution
of deed under "coercion of the court's decree" is voluntary).
Even if such an order by the Chancery Court might have been
erroneous, Peskin v. Peskin, 638 A.2d 849 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div. 1994) (error for Chancery Court to coerce settlement
agreement in divorce case), we cannot say that it rose to the
level of being improper or wrongful, especially since Alice had
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011