Alimony Lawyer

Chapters: Incest, Adultery, Divorce, Adoption, Affiliation, Conservatorship, Alimony, Fathers’ rights movement, Child support, Legal rights of women in history, LGBT adoption, Domestic partnership in California, LGBT parenting, Parental leave, Common-law marriage, Custody battle for Anna Mae He, Marriage law, Postnuptial agreement, Collaborative law, Get, No-fault divorce, International matrimonial law, Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case, Minors and abortion, Collaborative practice, Timeline of women’s rights, Jewish views on incest, Prenuptial agreement, Nullity, Contact, Fetal rights, Laws regarding incest, Child custody, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Annulment, Legitimacy, Prenuptial Agreement for the Prevention of Get-Refusal, Paternal rights and abortion, Language of adoption, Same-sex marriage in Connecticut, Paternity fraud, Melissa Hawach, Christian views on divorce, Noncustodial parent, California Child Support Guideline Review, Civil marriage, Parental alienation, Divorce demography, Parental testing, AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, McKenzie Friend, Pregnancy discrimination, Sweden v. Yamaguchi, Extrinsic fraud, Born alive rule, James Stewart, Civil Code of the Philippines, Perez v. Sharp, Best interests, Adoption in California, Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, Child support by country, Adoption proceedings of Emma Rose, Fosterage, Donor registration, Paid Family Leave, Donor Sibling Registry, Goldman child custody case, Donor conceived person, Fathers’ rights movement in Australia, Megullia Dotata, Residence in English family law, Australian family law, Jury of Matrons, Baby Richard case, Mudawana, Algerian Family Code, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Elizabeth Morgan Act, Coparenting, Void marriage, Leave of absence, Families Need Fathers, Joint custody, Adoption and Safe Families Act, Abusua, Child and Family Law Reform Movement, Michael Broyde, Parental responsibility, Im…

Family law: Incest, Adultery, Divorce, Adoption, Affiliation, Conservatorship, Alimony, Fathers’ rights movement, Child support

Nancy Mathews v. Thomas Mathews
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX

December 9, 1993

Contemplating divorce on the ground that there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the parties negotiated and entered into a “Divorce Agreement” that is dated February 28, 1979. The parties recited that in executing the agreement they were “desirous of settling their respective property rights and agreeing on all other matters which are now or may hereafter become issues between them.  The agreement was a detailed one, dealing with such issues as the rights and obligations of the parties in general under the agreement, the disposition of personal property, alimony, child support, life and medical insurance, educational expenses of the child, and custody and visitation.

Issue:

Did the plaintiff can enforce against the defendant certain provisions of a Divorce Agreement in a contract action?

The Court finds that the agreement itself does not explicitly address the question whether the agreement is to survive the judgment of divorce as a separately enforceable contract; it says neither that it shall nor that it shall not.  In the present case, the parties have submitted an agreed statement of facts, including copies of the divorce judgment and a master’s report which that judgment confirmed. The master’s report in particular sheds further light on the parties’ intentions with respect to the survival or not of the agreement.  The Court further states that if only the Divorce Agreement itself can be consulted to determine whether the parties intended that agreement to survive as an independent contract, then under DeCristofaro’s holding, the agreement would survive. But if, applying the Parrish rule, it is proper to look outside the Divorce Agreement itself to other evidence of what the parties intended, then on the agreed record, specifically the master’s report, it appears that the parties struck out a provision that would have caused the Agreement to survive, and this must be taken as an expression that they did not wish it to do so.

Accordingly, this court ruled that the wife could not enforce the divorce agreement in a contract action, and the husband’s motion for summary judgment in his favor was allowed. The wife’s cross-motion was denied.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Originally published here.

San Bernardino Divorce and Family Law Attorney Bill Edgar discusses what can and cannot be included in a prenuptial agreement and how it can affect a divorce and property division. TheLaw Office of H. William Edgar handles divorce, child custody and support, spousal support, property division and many other issues that arise from a dissolution of marriage. You can contact Mr. Edgar at www.RiversideFamilyLawAttorneys.com or by calling (866) 902-5290.