## Facts

- James Dean Golder (husband), a stockbroker and legislator, and Diane R. Golder (wife), a secretary, married in 1970 and adopted a daughter in 1975.
- During the marriage, the parties accumulated substantial community assets, including rental properties and interests in real-property-related instruments.
- In July 1979, during divorce negotiations, Diane (unrepresented by counsel) transferred her interests in multiple community property deeds of trust to James.
- The parties executed a property settlement agreement prepared by James’s attorney and later incorporated into the divorce decree.
- The agreement gave Diane limited personal property, small account balances, and $20,000 payable in $100 monthly installments without interest; it awarded James the unitemized remainder of the community property.
- The trial court later found the community estate’s value to be far greater than reflected in the agreement and found that Diane’s negotiated share was disproportionately small.
- The trial court found James concealed and misrepresented the extent and value of community assets and pressured Diane not to consult counsel by threatening to litigate child custody.
- About a year after the decree, Diane filed an independent action seeking equitable relief from the property-division portion of the judgment based on fraud and overreaching.
- The trial court set aside the original property division, redivided the community property to award Diane substantial additional assets, denied punitive damages and trial-level attorney’s fees, and entered related custody and support rulings (including increased child support).

## Issues

1. Whether the husband’s concealment/misrepresentations and custody-related threats constituted fraud and overreaching sufficient to support an independent action setting aside the property-division portion of a final divorce decree.
2. Whether the trial court, upon such findings, could redivide the community property rather than grant narrower relief.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying punitive damages despite finding an extreme degree of fraud.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the wife attorney’s fees at trial and whether attorney’s fees should be awarded on appeal.
5. Whether the trial court’s related custody and child support rulings should be disturbed on appeal.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment reopening the property division and the resulting redivision of community assets.
- The court affirmed the denial of punitive damages.
- The court affirmed the denial of trial-level attorney’s fees to Diane.
- The court awarded Diane attorney’s fees on appeal.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s related custody and child support determinations.

## Legal Principles

- Spouses negotiating marital property settlements, even in contemplation of divorce, owe duties of fairness and full disclosure; concealment and material misrepresentation of community assets may constitute actionable fraud.
- “Overreaching” includes taking unfair advantage of the other spouse’s vulnerable position, including coercive use of custody threats to deter independent legal advice and induce acceptance of a one-sided agreement.
- A final divorce decree’s property division may be attacked through an independent action in equity where fraud or overreaching prevented a fair submission of the controversy.
- Where fraud/overreaching materially infects the property settlement incorporated into the decree, a court may set aside the property division and redivide the community estate to restore an equitable distribution.
- Punitive damages and attorney’s fees in domestic relations matters are generally discretionary; a finding of serious fraud does not compel punitive damages, and trial-level fees may be denied based on the parties’ financial circumstances after relief.
- Appellate attorney’s fees may be awarded where an appeal is deemed to unreasonably prolong litigation in light of supported factual findings.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse’s concealment of marital assets and coercive custody threats can amount to fraud and overreaching warranting equitable relief from a divorce property judgment, upheld a full redivision of the community estate, sustained discretionary denials of punitive damages and trial fees, and granted attorney’s fees on appeal.


Golder v. Golder, 714 P.2d 26 (Idaho 1986)