Can Utah courts set aside postnuptial agreements for fraudulent inducement? Gerwe v. Gerwe Explained

In Gerwe v. Gerwe, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court properly set aside a postnuptial agreement based on fraudulent inducement, providing guidance on evidentiary standards and the elements required to prove fraud in marital agreements.

Background and Facts

During divorce proceedings, the parties entered into a postnuptial agreement dividing their assets and financial obligations. Wife later moved to set aside the agreement, alleging Husband fraudulently induced her to sign by representing he intended to reconcile when he had no such intent. The district court granted Wife’s motion after finding three key pieces of evidence: the short time between signing the agreement and requesting to proceed with divorce, immediate text messages from Husband after signing, and Husband’s invalid justifications for not wanting to reconcile that were merely attempts to justify his actions.

Key Legal Issues

Husband challenged the district court’s ruling on multiple grounds, arguing the court failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard required for fraudulent inducement claims and failed to make sufficient findings on each of the nine elements of fraud. He also contested various property distribution decisions and support awards made in the divorce decree.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying plain error review since Husband failed to preserve his evidentiary standard argument below. The court held that absent affirmative evidence in the record that the wrong standard was applied, reviewing courts must presume the district court used the correct legal standard. The court found the evidence sufficient to support all elements of fraudulent inducement, including that Husband made false representations about his intent to reconcile, knew they were false, made them to induce Wife to sign the agreement, and Wife reasonably relied on them to her detriment.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of preserving legal arguments at trial and demonstrates that courts will presume regularity in proceedings absent contrary record evidence. For practitioners handling marital agreement disputes, the case illustrates how circumstantial evidence like timing and communications can establish fraudulent inducement. The decision also reinforces district courts’ broad discretion in property distribution and support determinations, requiring clear evidence of abuse to overturn such rulings on appeal.