A contentious legal battle has emerged over the enforceability of a confidentiality clause in a collaborative law agreement for marriage dissolution. Ling Mueller filed a complaint on June 3, 2024, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California against Paul Mueller, seeking to enforce a confidentiality clause in their collaborative divorce agreement.
Ling and Paul Mueller married in 2009 and separated in 2017. During their marriage, they cultivated cannabis and buried the proceeds on their property. They initially attempted to use collaborative law to dissolve their marriage, signing an agreement that explicitly stated it created no enforceable legal rights or obligations. Despite this, Ling sought to keep statements made during these sessions confidential under the terms of the agreement.
The crux of the case lies in whether the confidentiality clause within their collaborative law agreement is legally binding. The family court ruled that it was not, allowing testimony about statements Ling made during the collaborative sessions. The court found that although confidentiality is crucial for trust in such processes, the explicit language of the agreement rendered it unenforceable.
Paul's attorney testified that Ling admitted to excavating at least $400,000 from their buried cash reserves and investing significant amounts overseas and in antiques. When questioned about these investments during a session, Ling reportedly became very angry and abruptly ended the meeting by declaring they would go to court. Subsequently, she initiated divorce proceedings with new counsel.
In her appeal, Ling argued that the confidentiality clause should be enforceable despite the overall agreement stating otherwise. She contended that interpreting it as non-binding violated contract interpretation principles and public policy favoring confidentiality in dispute resolution processes. However, her arguments were rejected by both the family court and appellate court.
Justices Burns, Jackson and Simons affirmed that while confidentiality could benefit collaborative negotiations, enforcing such a provision when explicitly stated as non-binding contradicts established contract law principles. It emphasized that parties must draft clear and legally enforceable agreements if they wish to maintain confidentiality.
Ultimately, Ling was ordered to make a $161,077 equalizing payment after being found less credible than Paul regarding their financial disclosures during marriage dissolution proceedings.
The attorneys involved were John L. Dodd & Associates representing Ling Mueller and Vannucci Momsen Morrow representing Paul Mueller. The case was presided over by Honorable Patrick Michael Pekin with Judges Burns, Jackson (P.J.), and Simons concurring on Case ID A166577.