## Facts

- Judy Sidden and Richard Mailman married in 1980 and separated in 1994.
- The spouses negotiated a property settlement without attorneys.
- Mailman prepared a handwritten list of purported marital assets and proposed a distribution.
- The parties executed a written settlement agreement based on that list.
- Mailman did not list his retirement account, valued at about $158,100.
- Sidden alleged she did not know of the retirement account, relied on Mailman’s representation that all assets were disclosed, and claimed the omission was intentional.
- Mailman claimed the omission was inadvertent and argued Sidden could have discovered the account by further inquiry or by retaining counsel.
- After the agreement, the parties obtained an absolute divorce.
- After learning of the retirement account, Sidden sued to challenge the agreement for fraud and sought relief including equitable distribution of the omitted asset.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse alleging nondisclosure of a substantial marital asset must plead breach of fiduciary duty (in addition to or instead of fraud) to obtain relief from a separation/property settlement agreement.
2. Whether the record, viewed in Sidden’s favor, showed a genuine dispute of material fact on fraud sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Mailman and remanded.
- The court held Sidden was not required to assert a separate breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim to pursue relief based on alleged fraudulent nondisclosure during spousal settlement negotiations.
- The court held a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Mailman’s failure to disclose the retirement account constituted fraud, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Transactions between spouses are subject to close judicial scrutiny because the marital relationship is confidential.
- When spouses contract over marital property, the law imposes a duty of full and fair disclosure of material facts; the spouse seeking to uphold the transaction bears the burden of showing the trust was not violated.
- A marital settlement may be set aside for fraud, including concealment of a material asset, where concealment was intended to deceive, did deceive, and caused damage through reasonable reliance.
- In this context, the confidential relationship and disclosure duty inform the fraud analysis; a plaintiff need not plead “breach of fiduciary duty” as a separate cause of action to pursue a fraud theory.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where intent, knowledge, reliance, and materiality are genuinely disputed on a fraud claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged spousal nondisclosure of a substantial marital asset can support a fraud challenge to a property settlement without a separately labeled fiduciary-duty claim, and that disputed evidence regarding intent and reliance required trial rather than summary judgment.


Sidden v. Mailman, 137 N.C. App. 669, 529 S.E.2d 266 (2000)