## Facts

- Anna and Maciej Jan Kieturakis resolved property issues through a mediated marital settlement agreement (MSA), later incorporated into a dissolution judgment.
- The written MSA stated the parties understood their fiduciary duties, were fully informed of the agreement’s terms, and entered it without duress, fraud, undue influence, coercion, or misrepresentation.
- Nearly two years after entry of judgment, Anna moved to set aside the judgment and MSA, alleging fraud, duress, and inadequate disclosure in the property division.
- Anna invoked mediation confidentiality and refused to waive it, seeking to bar evidence of mediation communications while pursuing claims that relied on what occurred during mediation.
- The trial court applied the interspousal presumption of undue influence to an allegedly unequal transaction and placed on Maciej the burden to rebut it.
- Over Anna’s objection (and over the mediator’s objection), the trial court admitted evidence of mediation communications, including mediator testimony, and denied the set-aside motion.
- In later post-judgment proceedings, the trial court increased support at Anna’s request and denied Anna attorney’s fees related to those support proceedings.
- Both parties appealed, and the appeals were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether, on a post-judgment motion to set aside a dissolution judgment incorporating a mediated MSA, the interspousal presumption of undue influence shifts the burden to the advantaged spouse despite mediation confidentiality and the policy favoring judgment finality.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of mediation communications, including mediator testimony, to address the set-aside allegations.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in increasing support and denying attorney’s fees in the post-judgment support proceedings.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders denying the set-aside motion, increasing support, and denying attorney’s fees.
- The court held the trial court should not have placed the burden on Maciej under the interspousal undue-influence presumption in this post-judgment, mediated-settlement context.
- The court held the presumption of undue influence must yield to the policies favoring mediation confidentiality and the finality of judgments; the moving party bears the burden to prove grounds to set aside.
- Because the burden was misallocated at trial, any error in admitting mediation evidence was harmless in the circumstances.
- The court rejected the parties’ challenges to the support modification and fee rulings and left those orders intact.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse moving post-judgment to set aside a dissolution judgment incorporating a mediated settlement bears the burden of proving fraud, duress, nondisclosure, or other asserted grounds for relief.
- The ordinary presumption of undue influence in interspousal transactions does not shift the burden to the allegedly advantaged spouse when that shift would conflict with strong policies protecting mediation confidentiality and the finality of judgments.
- Mediation confidentiality under the Evidence Code strongly protects communications and settlement discussions occurring in mediation; courts will avoid procedural rules that would invite one-sided use of confidentiality to prevent an effective response to set-aside claims.
- Even if a trial court admits mediation evidence in a manner later questioned on appeal, reversal requires prejudice; where the outcome does not depend on the challenged evidence under the proper burden allocation, any error may be deemed harmless.
- Post-judgment support modifications and related attorney-fee determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirmance is appropriate where the trial court acted within that discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed all orders and held that, when a mediated marital settlement has been incorporated into a final dissolution judgment, the spouse seeking to set aside that judgment must carry the burden of proof, because applying the usual interspousal undue-influence burden shift would conflict with mediation confidentiality and the policy favoring finality.


In re Marriage of Kieturakis, 138 Cal. App. 4th 56 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)