## Facts

- G.A.S. (husband) and S.I.S. (wife) married in 1957 and had four children.
- The husband suffered from serious mental illness, including paranoid schizophrenia, and was repeatedly hospitalized for treatment.
- In late 1974 and early 1975, the husband experienced a significant psychiatric episode and continued receiving hospital care, including spending nights in the hospital.
- The wife filed for divorce while the husband was still under treatment.
- The husband did not want a divorce and believed he might reconcile with the wife if he cooperated with her requests.
- The wife and her attorney arranged for the husband to come to the attorney’s office and presented him with a separation agreement prepared on the wife’s side.
- The husband signed the agreement without reading it and without having an attorney of his own review or explain it.
- At the time of signing, the husband was recovering from a paranoid schizophrenic episode; hospital records showed he was taking multiple medications.
- The agreement required the husband to pay $750 per month in child support, even though his take-home pay was about $1,300 per month.
- The agreement gave the wife control of the marital home (where the children lived) and also control of the parties’ beach house.
- The husband later sought to rescind (set aside) the separation agreement, asserting he lacked capacity and that the agreement resulted from undue influence/constructive fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether the husband had sufficient mental capacity at the time of signing to understand the nature and effect of the separation agreement.
2. Whether the separation agreement was voidable because it was procured through undue influence or constructive fraud, given the husband’s mental condition, medications, lack of independent counsel, and the agreement’s one-sided terms.

## Decision

- The court concluded the separation agreement was voidable and granted rescission.
- The court found the husband did not have sufficient capacity at the time of execution to understand the agreement’s nature and consequences.
- The court also determined the circumstances supported undue influence/constructive fraud: the wife knew of the husband’s compromised condition, the transaction was arranged through the wife’s attorney, the husband lacked independent legal advice, and the resulting terms were markedly unfavorable to the husband.
- The court set aside the separation agreement so it would not govern the parties’ rights and obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Contractual capacity requires a party to be able to understand, in a reasonable way, the nature and effect of the act at the time the agreement is made.
- Severe mental illness and the effects of medication may show lack of capacity when they materially impair comprehension at the moment of signing.
- In marital agreements, a spouse’s susceptibility, the other spouse’s opportunity to influence the transaction, and a result reflecting overreaching may justify rescission for undue influence or constructive fraud.
- The absence of independent counsel for a vulnerable spouse, especially where the other spouse’s lawyer prepares and presents the agreement, weighs against enforcement.
- Substantial unfairness in support or property terms can corroborate claims that an agreement was not the product of a voluntary and informed bargain.

## Conclusion

G.A.S. v. S.I.S. holds that the Delaware Family Court may rescind a separation agreement when a spouse signs while mentally impaired and medicated, without independent counsel, and the agreement’s procurement and terms show undue influence or constructive fraud, making the agreement voidable and subject to being set aside.


G.A.S. v. S.I.S., 407 A.2d 253 (1978)