Case Brief Gross Disparity

Gross disparity occurs when there is an unequal division in the assets that

shocks the conscience. Derby v. Derby, 8 Va. App. 19, 26, 378 S.E.2d 74, 77 (1989). In

this case, The Court held that "[T]he gross disparity in the value of the property each

received under the separation agreement [was] shocking in that Sandra Derby becomes

sole owner of the bulk of the parties' marital property valued at $260,000 as apartments

or $423,000 if converted into condominiums.” Id. The trial court's finding of

unconscionability was supported by the evidence of gross disparity in the agreement.

In Galloway v. Galloway, the court held that the agreement did not involve gross

disparity because even though they agreed to an unequal division of the marital assets,

the wife had received an inheritance and therefore would be in a similar economic

situation as before the divorce. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App.

2005). In Galloway, the husband and wife agreed that he would receive sole ownership

of the marital home and the family business. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E.2d 267 (Va.

Ct. App. 2005). The wife would only receive ownership of her personal items and the

family vehicle. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). However, the

wife had recently inherited $30,000 in cash and a home valued at $275,000. Galloway

v. Galloway, 622 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). The Smiths endured a gross disparity

in the amount they paid for the freezer.

In this case, Star Rent-to-Own took advantage of the Smiths and their desperate

circumstances by persuading them to enter into an agreement with a price that was

over three times the current market value. This large price disparity compares to the

other cases where there was gross disparity because much like in Derby where one
party would receive most or all of the benefit and another would receive minuscule

benefit, the Smiths received a small benefit of a freezer and Star received most of the

benefit, making a profit that was three times the value of what the Smiths received.

Therefore, akin to the disparate values distributed in Derby and Galloway, there was a

significant difference in the market value of the freezer and the price the Smiths paid to

Star Rent-to-Own. Unlike in Galloway, the Smiths would not be left in a similar

economic situation as before entering the contract because they have incurred

expenses for the death of a parent and for caring for a parent. The excessive price

makes the contract unconscionable and would leave the Smiths in a much worse

financial status than they were when they entered into the agreement. Gross

inadequacy between an item's value and its purchase price can be used by courts to

display inequality that shocks the conscience, just as was displayed in Derby v Derby.

Since Star RentTo-Own is selling something for over three times the value, any further

enforcement of the agreement should be found to be substantially unconscionable.

Case Brief Overreaching

In Sims v. Sims, the court concluded that “when the gross disparity in the

division of property is so extreme as to prove pecuniary necessities, it

establishes both elements of the unconscionability test” Sims v. Sims, 685

S.E.2d 869 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). Mrs. Sims claimed to be fully disabled and took

medication for depression, insulin, morphine and percocet. She claimed that her

conditions and the medications contributed to her lack of understanding in

signing the agreement and that she did not read the agreement and did not

comprehend the legal impact it had (granting Husband nearly 100% of all marital

property). Mrs. Sims’ was on food stamps and “barely getting by”, thus her

economic disadvantage that resulted from the unfair agreement was enough to

establish the contract unconscionable Sims v. Sims, 685 S.E.2d 869 (Va. Ct.

App. 2009).

In the case of Chaplain v. Chaplain, 682 S.E. 2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2009),

the court found that the evidence showed that Mrs. Chaplain had the intellectual

capacity to understand the terms of the agreement and did not prove that she

could not support herself as she was educated and skilled. Mrs. Chaplain

claimed to not have understood the impact of the premarital agreement because

her English was bad. Mr. Chaplain did not fully disclose his net worth (20 million

dollars) to wife prior to execution of the agreement. Mrs. Chaplain was educated

and did not have trouble with supporting herself. As a result, the court found this

agreement to be enforceable and not unconscionable.