Logourl black
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...

Francois v. Francois

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
599 F.2d 1286 (1979)


Facts

Victor Francois (Victor) (plaintiff) married A. Jane Francois (Jane) (defendant) in May 1971. At the time, Victor was relatively well off, owning a rental property, shares in several family businesses, a portfolio of public stock, and savings accounts. Jane had two minor children from a previous relationship and no assets of her own. Early in their marriage, upon pressure applied by Jane, Victor (1) deposited money for her use in a joint account, (2) bought an expensive house in both of their names, (3) adopted her children, (4) conveyed to her his entire interest in the rental property and a substantial portion of his interest in the family businesses, (5) gave her power of attorney over his public stock, and (6) bought her a boat. After an argument in the fall of 1974, Jane retained a divorce attorney, Harold Monson, without Victor’s knowledge. They presented Victor with a “Property Settlement and Separation Agreement,” suggesting that the marriage would be terminated unless Victor signed it. The agreement essentially gave all of Victor’s remaining assets to Jane and paid her alimony as well. Monson called in an attorney working in the same office building to represent Victor. Such attorney’s name had already been inserted into the agreement in such capacity. After reading the agreement, the attorney told Victor it was “financial suicide” and that the attorney could not represent him if Victor insisted on signing. Nevertheless, Victor signed the agreement. The couple continued to live together for a year, during which time Jane sold or otherwise attempted to transfer the bulk of the assets that Victor had conveyed to her. She then left him. Victor sued her for rescission of the agreement. After a nonjury trial, the district court declared the agreement void on several grounds, including undue influence. Jane appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Rosenn, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 119,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.