- 9 -
On August 29, 1982, Kathleen filed a Reply to the Answer,
alleging circumstances around the time of signing the Deed of
Separation that would cause the instrument to be "null and void,
or voidable, and of no legal effect". Her Reply asserted that
the Deed of Separation, irrespective of its validity or
invalidity, did not bar her claim for equitable distribution.
Decedent's counsel took Kathleen's deposition on January 27,
1983. During the deposition, Kathleen reconstructed the couple's
negotiations based on the various drafts of the Deed of
Separation and the handwritten notes thereon. With regard to
decedent's life insurance, Kathleen had wanted $100,000 of the
benefits for herself if she had not remarried. Also, it was
Kathleen who wanted the children to reach 21, instead of 18,
years of age before decedent could designate whomever he wished
as beneficiaries. In the deposition, Kathleen did not suggest
that her benefits were dependent on the children's ages, or that
the children's benefits were dependent on her marital status.
Decedent and Kathleen agreed to settle the equitable
distribution action. Decedent agreed to pay Kathleen $400,000
"in full and complete settlement of her marital property and
other claims alleged or which could have been alleged in the * *
* action. The parties agree that the settlement shall be treated
as a marital property division." The termination of decedent's
obligations under the Deed of Separation was never discussed
during the settlement negotiations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011