Jordan v. Jordan
313 Ga. App. 189
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jordan and Mildred Jordan divorced in 2007; Joyner represented Mr. Jordan from 2002–2004 in a prior dispute and was also a neighbor.
- Joyner agreed to represent Mrs. Jordan to handle an uncontested divorce, on the condition the divorce remain uncontested and he drafted the settlement documents.
- The settlement was incorporated into the final judgment and decree of divorce in Dawson County; three vacant lots were quitclaimed to Mrs. Jordan and debts/ownership were allocated, including a division of the restaurant and a $560,000 brokerage account split.
- Mrs. Jordan received no alimony; the family residence was quitclaimed to Mrs. Jordan and later foreclosed for $1 million after the decree.
- Jordan sues for fraud and conspiracy, and Joyner for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging an oral side agreement to divide assets more equitably and a misrepresentation about the agreement’s binding nature.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants; Jordan appeals, arguing the settlement could be attacked without setting aside the decree and that the contract was fraudulently formed to defraud creditors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the settlement be attacked without setting aside the final decree? | Jordan contends the decree is irrelevant to validity of the agreement. | Settlement incorporated in decree cannot be collaterally attacked; only by setting aside the decree. | Settlement cannot be attacked without setting aside the decree. |
| Is the fraud claim barred because of a creditor-fraud context? | Joyner allegedly induced signing to defraud creditors; side agreement existed. | Executed contracts to defraud creditors remain valid between parties; cannot aid non-executed portions. | Even if fraud occurred, judgment proper on other grounds; fraud claim barred only independently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mehdikarimi v. Emaddazfuli, 268 Ga. 428 (Ga. 1997) (fraudulent settlement claims tied to final decree; remedy through setting aside decree)
- Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652 (Ga. 2005) (rights after divorce depend on judgment, not the settlement agreement)
- White v. White, 274 Ga. 884 (Ga. 2002) (disclosure provisions in incorporated settlement analyzed via fraud-settlement doctrine)
- Mahan v. Jackson, 147 Ga. App. 495 (Ga. App. 1978) (ex-spouse estopped from attacking an incorporated agreement until decree set aside)
- Guthrie v. Guthrie, 277 Ga. 700 (Ga. 2004) (unincorporated settlements analyzed under contract rules, not divorce-specific rules)
- Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 263 Ga. 498 (Ga. 1993) (suit on unincorporated settlement agreement is contract action between former spouses)