## Facts

- The spouses sought a summary dissolution and pursued a “friendly” divorce.
- They negotiated the material settlement terms themselves and provided the agreed terms to an attorney to be put into a formal marital settlement agreement (MSA).
- The attorney had previously represented each spouse in unrelated matters and warned of a potential conflict of interest.
- The attorney advised both spouses to obtain independent counsel and initially declined to prepare the MSA.
- The spouses insisted the attorney draft the MSA, signed a written conflict waiver, and agreed the attorney would act only as a scrivener (no legal advice; drafting and standard provisions only).
- The executed MSA included spousal support terms tied to business/lease income, including an increase to $2,000 per month or one-half of net lease income (whichever was greater) after a new lease was signed.
- The husband later stopped making support payments; the wife moved to enforce the MSA.
- The husband opposed enforcement and sought to set aside the MSA, asserting fraud, duress, undue influence, and inadequate conflict disclosure.
- The trial court refused to enforce the MSA, concluding the conflict disclosures were insufficient for informed consent and that conflict rules were violated.

## Issues

1. Whether an MSA is enforceable when drafted by a single attorney who previously represented each spouse, where the attorney disclosed the potential conflict, obtained a written waiver, acted only as a scrivener, and the agreement was entered voluntarily without fraud, duress, or undue influence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment refusing enforcement.
- The court held the September 1998 MSA was enforceable.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by treating the conflict concerns as rendering the MSA unenforceable despite the written waiver and the attorney’s limited scrivener role.
- The matter was remanded with directions consistent with enforcing the MSA.

## Legal Principles

- A marital settlement agreement is not unenforceable merely because a single attorney assisted both spouses, where the attorney discloses the potential conflict, obtains an informed written waiver, and limits the role to scrivener for the parties’ independently negotiated terms.
- When an attorney does not negotiate for either side and does not provide legal advice, the attorney’s role may be treated as neutral drafting rather than dual advocacy.
- Absent evidence of fraud, duress, or undue influence, a voluntarily executed MSA will generally be enforced according to its terms.
- A trial court may not invalidate an otherwise voluntary MSA solely on the basis of conflict concerns when adequate disclosure, written waiver, and a limited drafting role are established on the record.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the parties’ voluntarily negotiated MSA because the attorney’s potential conflict was disclosed and waived in writing, the attorney acted only as a scrivener rather than counsel to adverse parties, and there was no showing that the agreement resulted from fraud, duress, or undue influence.


In re Marriage of Egedi, 88 Cal. App. 4th 17, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 518 (Ct. App. 2001)