In some Washington divorce cases, one party may have advantages over the other. In a recent case, a former husband sought to vacate the divorce order, arguing the wife had misrepresented the documents he signed.
According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband’s father was American and his mother was Vietnamese. Although he spoke “conversational English,” the husband could not read or write in English beyond his name.
The husband signed a quitclaim deed in August 2023 transferring the parties’ house to the wife with no consideration.
The wife filed for divorce the following October, seeking enforcement of the quitclaim deed. Both parties signed the findings and conclusions and final decree. The decree characterized the property as the wife’s separate property and noted that the quitclaim deed had been signed by both parties and filed with the office of the tax assessor.
The court entered the final decree in February 2024. Its findings and conclusions identified the property as the wife’s separate property and stated the community property had been divided.
The husband moved for a show cause order and to vacate the dissolution order pursuant to CR 60(b)(1), (4), and (11), and CR 60(c), arguing he thought he was signing documents to allow the wife to sell an RV when he signed the quitclaim deed. He claimed the wife told him the property would stay in both names and they would pay the mortgage together when she gave him the divorce documents to sign. He said he signed the documents because he trusted her. He said he stayed in the home and kept giving the wife money for the mortgage and other expenses. He said he only figured out “she took everything” after he consulted with an attorney. He alleged the wife “swapped out papers” and forged his initials.
The trial court denied his motions, and the husband appealed.
CR 60(b)(4)
CR 60(b)(4) allows a court to vacate a final judgement because of “[f]raud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” Pursuant to case law, the rule only applies where the fraud or misrepresentation “cause the entry of the judgment. . .” Lindgren v. Lindgren.
The husband argued the trial court had erred in narrowing the scope by requiring him to prove fraud or misrepresentation was made to the court, but the appeals court disagreed. The appeals court noted the husband was required to prove “the alleged fraud or misrepresentation caused the trial court to enter the final dissolution order.” The husband had to show by clear and convincing evidence that the terms of the order were procured by the wife’s fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.
The appeals court pointed out the husband admitted he signed the documents willingly despite not being able to read them. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the motion to vacate pursuant to CR 60(b)(4).
CR 60(b)(11)
CR 60(b)(11) permits a court to vacate a final judgment base on “[a]ny other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Case law has held that this subsection is limited to circumstances not otherwise covered by the rule and relating to “irregularities extraneous to the action of the court or questions concerning the regularity of the court’s proceedings.” Yearout v. Yearout.
The appeals court concluded the circumstances in this case did not meet the requirements of CR60(b)(11). The court noted the husband had not alleged any additional grounds under this section that he had not alleged under CR 60(b)(4). The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the motion to vacate.
Seek Legal Advice
The husband in this case suggested the wife took advantage of his inability to read English. As this case illustrates, it may be difficult or impossible to undo things once documents have been signed. If you are facing divorce, a skilled Washington divorce attorney can help you understand any documents and protect your interests. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC by calling (206) 622-6562.