Two other assertions of the ex-husband, also confirmed by the Court of Justice, justify, first, that the agreements were nullified, the only consideration being incitement to a crime and, second, that, on the basis of these agreements, the present claim for recovery cannot be maintained if both agreements were based on the fact that the declaration of confidence and the asset transaction agreement were concluded by measures of coercion. , threat or coercion. Both of these statements are based on the same facts as those testified by the husband and on which we have already given the content of his testimony. In that context, it is sufficient to note that Illinois follows the weight of authority when it finds that, in years when no criminal proceedings are pending, the actual commission of the alleged offence must be proved. – Keith v. Buck, 16 Fig. App. 121. See also 17 S.J.C., sect. 228.) Not only was there no such presentation, but on the contrary, the husband denied that the offences he had committed had been committed. Moreover, since Rendelman v. Rendelman, 156, 568 [41 N.E. 223], Illinois law states that “mere threats of imprisonment for which there is no reason do not constitute coercion, for it could not frighten the person under threat.
Nor does the threat of prosecution constitute coercion if no arrest warrant has been issued and no proceedings have been initiated. In this case, the testimony was that a party who was trying to get the transfer they were trying to avoid there told the grantor that “he would let him look through the bars if he didn`t sign it.” If your employer has offered you a settlement agreement, the law states that it is necessary for you to have independent legal advice for it to be valid and binding. The only evidence based on the assertion that the husband had executed the instruments as a result of the mixing of a crime and the coercion, threat and coercion imposed on him by the wife, was the husband`s testimony, categorically contested by the wife. . . .