Long v. Long

Before filing for divorce, Satin (plaintiff) had an attorney draft a stipulated decree heavily favoring her — most property, sole custody, and substantial support — and told Clayton (defendant) he could delete any terms he disliked; Clayton, who claimed he was intoxicated and believed the decree was something his counselor required for reconciliation, signed it anyway after texting Satin that he would agree to whatever terms she wanted. The trial court entered the decree but reduced support without explanation and without stating the statutory presumptive amount, and Clayton appealed, arguing the decree lacked consideration, was coerced, and was unconscionable.