HomeMy WebLinkAbout1206 CARROLL vs. PEASE
agreement, executed a Quit Claim Deed conveying her interest in
the home to Mr. Pease. It is this deed which Mrs. Carroll is '
asking the Court to set aside.
Mrs. Carroll's cause of action is based upon the alle-
gation that Mr. Pease appeared to agree to the terms of the
Separation and Property Settlement Agreement in order to fraudu-
lently induce her to execute the Quit Claim Deed, and that ;
thereafter, on or about April 18, 1973, he falsely and fraudulently j
i
procured physical control of Frederick R. Pease, Jr, and spirited
him from the State of Florida to defeat her custody rights.
There is no doubt that Mr. Pease violated the child .
custody provisions of the agreement, which by reference had been
~
made a part of the Final Judgment. Mrs. Carroll had to be out of `
town for a couple of days and it was mutually agreed to let the ~
3
3
younger son stay with his father until she returned. The next -
- i
day, Mr. Pease left Fort Pierce with the child and subsequently ~
~
~
took him to the State of Connecticut. Since that time, with two ;
- ~
brief exceptions during Court proceedings in Connecticut, Mrs. ~
~
` Carroll has not seen her son. ~
:
~ If Mr. Pease were before the Court on a Rule to Show ~
~ :
~ Cause, he most certainly could be found guilty of Contempt of ~
~
Court and be punished accordingly. However, the question in ;
this case is not limited to whether Mr. Pease, subsequent to i
~
A
entry of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, violated {
,
the terms thereof. If the deed were valid on March 9, 1973,
when it was execute~ and delivered, the subsequent violation
~ by Mr. Pease of the child custody provisions of the agreement 3
~
~ would not invalidate the deed. The question upon which this
~
~ case must be decided is whether the execution of the deed by
`
~
~ ~ 7
~ , ~
~ 2 ~ }
_ ~~~~225 P~1204 - ~
~
_ _
Yn3 ..~YL v* `Y ...r:y,:sy _
_ "Y.~," ~ ~
ay3
- x%- -
. . . ~ . _ , d~ ~ ~'i . ~ u._