Helen C. Hopkinson - Page 14




                                        - 14 -                                         

          In Gerlach v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 156, 169 (1970), however, we             
          did not apply either the Danielson rule or the strong proof rule             
          to a case involving a settlement incorporated into a divorce                 
          decree.  Because Gerlach v. Commissioner, supra, arose under                 
          section 71 as in effect before the effective date of DEFRA, we               
          looked to all of the facts and circumstances to determine whether            
          the payments were intended by the parties to the settlement                  
          agreement to be alimony or a property settlement.  See id.                   
          However, as we discussed above, after 1984, the inquiry under                
          section 71 is whether the objective factors of section 71 are                
          met.                                                                         
               Petitioner is essentially asking this Court to rewrite the              
          settlement agreement in order to meet the requirements of section            
          71.  Petitioner contends that reformation of the settlement                  
          agreement is appropriate because petitioner's attorney and former            
          husband fraudulently obtained her assent to the terms of the                 
          settlement agreement.  She bases her contention on the assertion             
          that her attorney and her former husband concealed information               
          concerning her former husband's true worth.  At trial, however,              
          petitioner did not produce any admissible evidence in the instant            
          case to corroborate such fraud.  Moreover, petitioner has not                
          asked the Georgia courts to reform or void the settlement                    
          agreement.  Rather, petitioner has pursued remedies available to             
          her under the terms of the settlement agreement to obtain further            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011