Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H and W were married on September 13, 1995. Twenty-seven days later, w retained an attorney to begin a divorce action. W signed a property settlement agreement at a meeting with H on October 12, 1995. H was not represented by counsel. W was represented by attorney Thomas Bair, who advised H he represented only W and H should retain his own attorney. H declined and signed the document after reviewing it. The property settlement agreement was accompanied by a quitclaim deed giving W ownership of a condominium worth about $70,000 and owned by H prior to the marriage. The property settlement agreement was filed in district court on October 16, 1995. On October 16, H retained an attorney and moved the district court to set aside the property settlement agreement, including the quitclaim deed executed in conjunction with it. The district court found H was able to act independently and freely to protect his own interests. The district court also found no mistake, fraud, or undue duress. H appealed from the district court's judgment. The case was remanded to the district court, saying its analysis and ruling were too narrow; it should have considered whether the property settlement agreement was unconscionable. The trial court found the agreement unconscionable and set it aside in its entirety. W appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.