Catherine Lucia Stewart v. Edward B‪.‬

On October 15, 1992, Catherine Stewart filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to her husband, Edward Stewart. The cause was set for trial on May 18, 1994, but instead of proceeding to trial, the parties began to negotiate. They reached a settlement the next day and appeared before the court to present the settlement agreement. The terms of the agreement were presented in open court, and both parties participated in Discussions with the court and made corrections as to the terms. The wife then testified as to jurisdictional issues, and stated that she accepted and approved of the settlement read to the court. At the Conclusion of the hearing, the court, at the parties' request, declared the marriage to be dissolved. The court entered a written decree of dissolution on August 19, 1994, in which it found that ""the verbal agreement presented to the Court by the parties is not unconscionable. . . ."" In the meantime, wife's counsel filed a motion to withdraw on July 5, 1994, which was denied by the court until after it had issued the written decree. On September 19, 1994, the wife filed a motion for new trial, accompanied by an affidavit, alleging that she was dissatisfied with her counsel's performance and with the settlement agreement. Specifically, she raised six grounds in her motion: (1) that her counsel could not have been acting in her best interest because counsel filed a motion to withdraw prior to the entry of the final decree of dissolution; (2) that wife was not informed of marital assets which were awarded to husband until she heard of the assets at the hearing; (3) that wife was not informed by counsel of details of the agreement; (4) that the terms of visitation in the agreement were unfamiliar to wife prior to the hearing; (5) that wife was not informed of the existence of husband's Union Electric savings account prior to the hearing; and (6) that wife was not informed of the consequences of husband's retirement benefits being awarded to husband. The wife's supporting affidavit recounts additional failures and omissions on the part of her trial counsel and her husband, which she argued entitled her to a new trial. The husband filed a counter-affidavit, contesting the facts stated in wife's affidavit. The trial court granted wife's motion for a new trial without specifying the grounds for its decision. Husband appeals.