Shih Ping Li v. Tzu Lee, 62 A.3d 212

Li challenged the circuit court's denial of his Motion to Set Aside the 2005 First Agreement and the 2008 Second Agreement.
The circuit court held the agreements were valid, not unconscionable, and no confidential relationship existed between Li and Lee or with Gu, who drafted the agreements.
Li sought to invalidate the agreements on grounds of unconscionability, lack of independent counsel, and potential attorney-client/confidentiality issues.
Li later filed a Motion to Revise (fraud-based) after obtaining USCIS records via FOIA suggesting Gu’s representations may have been broader than admitted.
The court found no confidential relationship, no duress/fraud, and that Li had ample opportunity to obtain counsel, rendering the agreements enforceable.
The judgments incorporating the Second Agreement into the divorce decree were affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a confidential relationship existed and the agreements were valid	Li contends Gu acted as his attorney, creating a confidential relationship calling validity into question.	Lee argues no confidential relationship existed and Li benefited from negotiated terms; independent counsel was advised but not required.	No confidential relationship; agreements valid.
Whether the denial of the Motion to Revise was an abuse of discretion	Li claims extrinsic fraud and injustice; he seeks relief under Md. Rule 2-535.	Lee contends no extrinsic fraud was proven and no hearing was required under Rule 2-535.	No abuse of discretion; no hearing required under Rule 2-535.
Whether the agreements were unconscionable at formation	Li argues terms were unfair due to lack of counsel and confidential leverage.	Lee argues terms were negotiated, not unconscionable, and Li had opportunity to compare assets and seek counsel.	Not substantively or procedurally unconscionable.

Blum v. Blum, 59 Md.App. 584, 477 A.2d 289 (Md. App. 1984) (guidelines for unconscionability and confidential relationship considerations)
Williams v. Williams, 306 Md. 332, 508 A.2d 985 (Md. 1986) (buyer’s remorse and unconscionability standards in separation agreements)
Hale v. Hale, 74 Md.App. 555, 539 A.2d 247 (Md. App. 1988) (confidential relationship analysis in separation agreements)
Walther v. Sovereign Bank, 386 Md. 412, 872 A.2d 735 (Md. 2005) (substantive unconscionability standard and one-sided terms)
Brooke v. Atty. Griev. Comm’n, 374 Md. 155, 821 A.2d 414 (Md. 2003) (restatement approach to determining attorney-client relationships)
Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 930 A.2d 328 (Md. 2007) (attorney-client relationship formation and confidentiality standards)
Miller v. Mathias, 428 Md. 419, 52 A.3d 53 (Md. 2012) (procedures for Md. Rule 2-535 motions and hearings)
Lasater v. Guttmann, 194 Md.App. 431, 5 A.3d 79 (Md. 2010) (burden-shifting in confidential-relationship determinations)
O’Hara v. Kovens, 60 Md.App. 619, 484 A.2d 275 (Md. 1984) (factors for confidential relationships and duress; awareness of rights)
Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149, 913 A.2d 10 (Md. 2006) (exceptional cases allowing outside-record evidence in review)