subject: Massachusetts Middlesex Divorce Agreement Alimony Child Support Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] Nancy Mathews vNancy 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 expensesof 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 asan 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.
Massachusetts Middlesex Divorce Agreement Alimony Child Support Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
