## Facts

- After deciding to end their 24-year marriage, the parties executed a separation and property-settlement agreement on July 10, 1985.
- The agreement required the husband to pay $400 per month in child support, pay the minor child’s college costs, and assume specified consumer debts.
- The agreement gave the wife an option to purchase the husband’s one-half interest in the marital home within three years.
- The wife later filed for absolute divorce; the husband answered but did not contest the divorce.
- A divorce decree was entered on December 23, 1987, incorporating but not merging the separation agreement.
- In August 1988, the wife exercised the home-purchase option and paid the husband $30,000 in cash.
- The husband then alleged the wife had concealed substantial cash assets during the 1985 negotiations and claimed she had affirmatively stated she lacked funds or accounts to buy out his interest.
- The husband moved to revise the divorce judgment and to rescind the separation agreement based on alleged “extrinsic fraud”; the circuit court dismissed the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse’s alleged concealment of assets during negotiation of a separation and property-settlement agreement later incorporated into a divorce decree constitutes extrinsic fraud permitting revision of an enrolled decree.
2. Whether the alleged concealment justified rescission of the incorporated (but not merged) separation agreement through reopening the divorce judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the husband’s motion.
- The court held the alleged concealment of assets related to matters that were or could have been litigated in the divorce proceeding and therefore constituted intrinsic, not extrinsic, fraud.
- Because intrinsic fraud is not a basis to vacate or revise an enrolled decree, the husband was not entitled to reopen the divorce judgment or obtain rescission through that mechanism.
- The court found no showing that the wife’s conduct prevented the husband from appearing, being represented, or presenting his case in the divorce action.
- The agreement’s language did not support the husband’s claim of reliance on representations outside the written document, including an asserted assurance about the wife’s lack of funds.

## Legal Principles

- An enrolled judgment generally may not be reopened for intrinsic fraud, including perjury, forged documents, or concealment of evidence bearing on issues that were or could have been tried in the original action.
- Extrinsic fraud involves conduct that deprives an adverse party of a fair opportunity to be heard (e.g., keeping the party from court or misleading the party about the proceeding) and may justify reopening an enrolled judgment.
- Misrepresentations or concealment concerning marital assets used to negotiate a settlement incorporated into a divorce decree are intrinsic where the opposing spouse had notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to investigate, contest, or litigate the issues.
- Strong public policy favors finality of enrolled divorce judgments where the parties had an opportunity to litigate and seek review.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged concealment of assets in negotiating a separation and property-settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree is intrinsic fraud and, absent conduct that prevented a fair adversarial hearing, does not permit reopening an enrolled divorce judgment or undoing the settlement through revision of the decree.


Hresko v. Hresko, 83 Md. App. 228, 574 A.2d 24 (Ct. Spec. App. 1990)