## Facts

- Victor Francois (Victor) married A. Jane Francois (Jane) in May 1971 after a short courtship.
- Victor entered the marriage with substantial assets, including a rental property, shares in family businesses, a portfolio of publicly traded stock, and savings accounts.
- Jane entered the marriage with two minor children from a prior relationship and no meaningful assets.
- During the marriage, and after pressure from Jane, Victor undertook a series of transfers and financial steps benefiting Jane, including:
  - depositing funds into a joint account for her use,
  - buying an expensive house titled in both names,
  - adopting Jane’s children,
  - conveying to Jane his entire interest in a rental property and a substantial portion of his interests in family businesses,
  - granting Jane power of attorney over his publicly traded stock, and
  - buying a boat for her.
- After an argument in the fall of 1974, Jane retained a divorce attorney, Harold Monson, without Victor’s knowledge.
- Monson and Jane presented Victor with a “Property Settlement and Separation Agreement,” indicating the marriage would end unless Victor signed.
- The agreement effectively transferred to Jane essentially all of Victor’s remaining assets and also provided for alimony payments to Jane.
- Monson arranged for another attorney, who worked in the same office building, to act as Victor’s attorney; that attorney’s name had already been inserted into the agreement as Victor’s counsel.
- After reviewing the agreement, the attorney told Victor it was “financial suicide” and stated he could not represent Victor if Victor insisted on signing it.
- Victor signed the agreement anyway.
- Victor and Jane continued living together for about a year after signing; during that time, Jane sold or otherwise attempted to transfer much of the property Victor had conveyed to her.
- Jane later left Victor, and Victor filed suit seeking rescission of the agreement.
- After a nonjury trial, the district court declared the agreement void on several grounds, including undue influence. Jane appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly set aside the property settlement and separation agreement on the ground that it was procured through undue influence in the context of a confidential marital relationship.
2. Whether, given the marital relationship and the highly one-sided nature of the agreement, the burden shifted to Jane to show the agreement was fair and entered voluntarily with full understanding.
3. Whether rescission and restitutionary relief returning transferred assets were proper equitable remedies under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment setting aside the agreement.
- The court agreed that the circumstances supported a finding of undue influence, given the confidential relationship between spouses and the extreme imbalance in the agreement’s benefits.
- The court upheld the district court’s conclusion that Jane did not carry the burden of showing the transaction was fair and that Victor acted with fully informed, voluntary consent, particularly in light of the circumstances surrounding the supposed legal representation for Victor.
- The court upheld rescission and related restorative relief aimed at returning the parties, as nearly as possible, to their positions before the agreement and related transfers.

## Legal Principles

- Spouses deal with each other in a confidential relationship, and interspousal transactions that heavily favor one spouse may be examined closely in equity.
- When the benefiting spouse is in a position of dominance and receives a grossly disproportionate advantage, a presumption of undue influence may arise.
- In that setting, the benefiting spouse may bear the burden to show the transaction was fair and that the other spouse acted freely, with full knowledge and genuine opportunity for independent legal advice.
- A purported consultation with counsel may not satisfy the requirement of independent advice where the circumstances show the representation was conflicted, illusory, or effectively refused.
- When undue influence is proven (or not rebutted after burden shifting), rescission and restitution are available to unwind the agreement and require return of property transferred under it.

## Conclusion

In *Francois v. Francois*, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to void and rescind a property settlement and separation agreement after finding it was procured through undue influence within the confidential marital relationship, where the agreement granted Jane essentially all remaining marital assets and the surrounding circumstances failed to show Victor’s informed, voluntary consent; the court also upheld equitable relief returning assets conveyed under the invalid agreement.


Francois v. Francois, 599 F.2d 1286 (1979)