Former anesthesiologist successfully defends against ex-spouse who claimed fraud in executing marita

On February 2, 2018, in an unpublished opinion (G.M. VS. R.M. (FM-13-0369-15)), the appellate division rejects a former spouse who claimed her former husband induced their marital settlement agreement by fraud.

The issues revolved around a $1.1 million embezzlement guilty plea taken by the defendant/former-husband anesthesiologist. As a practicing anesthesiologist the husband plead guilty to repeated malpractice claims, including excessive fees, indiscriminate prescribing of controlled drugs, and failing to disclose a financial interest in a self-owned health care service. During the doctor’s federal criminal case, the plaintiff filed for divorce.

The doctor fully cooperated with the U.S Attorney, and with his wife in disclosing the guilty plea agreement offered by the U.S Attorney during the divorce. In the guilty plea agreement, the sentencing clause blank, and left to the discretion of the federal sentencing judge.

In family court, October 27, 2014, the parties appeared with counsel for a final hearing on the uncontested divorce, and plaintiff/former wife testified and voluntarily entered into a marital settlement agreement with the defendant/appellee. The marital settlement agreement included a provision where the doctors former wife would receive $3.5 million as a tax free lump sum payment in lieu of alimony. Plaintiff/former wife

At sentencing in federal court, September 4, 2014, the defendant plead guilty, and only received five-years’ probation, with house-arrest for one year. Defendant's license to practice medicine has not been restored, however was allowed to apply for relicensure in 2017.

Because of the relatively light sentence, the possibility that the defendant may become a doctor, the plaintiff alleged fraud, plaintiff felt defendant defrauded her in the marital settlement agreement. Particularly, plaintiff alleged she negotiated with the understand that the defendant would never practice medicine again.

To prove fraud, the plaintiff must show the following:

"(1) a material representation by the defendant of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an intent that the plaintiff rely upon it; (4) reasonable reliance by the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff." Weil v. Express Container Corp., 360 N.J. Super. 599, 612-13 (App. Div. 2003) 15 A-1341-16T4 (citing Jewish Ctr. of Sussex Cty. v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 624 (1981)).

The plaintiff was unable to show any of the above. The marital settlement agreement and the court record revealed plaintiff’s acknowledgement of knowing and voluntary execution of the agreement. Moreover, plaintiff’s claim are procedurally barred because they were brought more than a year after the signing of the marital settlement agreement and uncontested hearing. The plaintiff enjoyed the fruits of the agreement having received $3.5 million tax free. “It is a well-recognized rule that a litigant who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a judgment is estopped from attacking it on appeal." Tassie v. Tassie, 140 N.J. Super. 517, 524 (App. Div. 1976).

If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me directly. 963-687-8613.