Donna Fridley v. Jack Plum, 15-1140

Donna Fridley and Jack Plum married in 2010; no children. Divorce proceedings culminated in a family-court final order (March 2, 2015) adopting a settlement agreement reached at a court-ordered settlement conference on December 4, 2014.
At the conference Fridley appeared pro se; Plum was represented. The parties signed a handwritten memorandum of understanding later reduced to a typewritten settlement agreement.
Key contested asset: a house deeded to Fridley during the marriage that burned down; Fridley received ~insurance proceeds and Plum asserted the proceeds were marital property subject to equitable distribution.
The settlement required Fridley to pay Plum $25,000 (with $1,000 at the final hearing), allocated debts and personal property, waived alimony, and included a provision that Plum would ask the prosecutor not to pursue pending criminal charges against Fridley.
After the magistrate dismissed the domestic battery charge, Fridley disavowed the settlement in family court. The family court enforced the agreement as fair, voluntary, and not procured by fraud, duress, or unconscionability; the circuit court affirmed. Fridley appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fridley)	Defendant's Argument (Plum)	Held
Was there a binding settlement agreement?	No meeting of the minds; disavowed agreement at court	Parties negotiated, signed, witnessed, and acted on agreement	Agreement was binding; family court findings not clearly erroneous
Did Plum’s promise to ask prosecutor to dismiss charges render agreement invalid (duress/undue influence)?	Promise to influence prosecution was an improper bargaining chip causing duress	Term was at Fridley’s request, ancillary to negotiated terms, not coercive	No duress/undue influence; no clear and convincing proof of coercion
Did failure to file complete financial statements invalidate the settlement?	Settlement failed to address substantial debt on property; nondisclosure undermines fairness	Fridley possessed and failed to disclose the information; tactical choice undermines challenge	Court upheld agreement; parties must disclose and cannot later repudiate favorable terms
Standard of review / appellate scope	(implicit) family court erred in factual and legal findings	Family court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal questions de novo	Circuit court correctly applied standards; Supreme Court affirms

Warner v. Warner, 183 W.Va. 90, 394 S.E.2d 74 (1990) (settlement agreements not set aside for duress absent clear and convincing proof)
Nakashima v. Nakashima, 171 W.Va. 9, 297 S.E.2d 208 (1982) (courts favor fair, voluntary separation agreements that fix property division)
Suttmiller v. Moreland, 183 W.Va. 621, 397 S.E.2d 910 (1990) (a party’s second thoughts do not justify setting aside a voluntary settlement)
Carr v. Hancock, 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004) (standard of review: family court findings for clear error; legal questions de novo)