Goldman v. Goldman – Divorce – Marital Settlement Agreement
Goldman v. Goldman, 543 A.2d 1304 (1988).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case involved a dispute regarding the modification of alimony payments based on a separation agreement under state law.
FACTS: Mr. Goldman filed a compliant for divorce and Ms. Goldman followed with a counterclaim. Prior to the entry of judgment the parties executed a marital settlement agreement that provided that H would pay $1,300 per month to W for support and maintenance. When the court entered judgment on W’s counterclaim he merged that judgment with the property settlement agreement. The agreement itself stated that it would not merge into any subsequent divorce judgment and that modification of the agreement would require the signature of both parties. However, the trial court judge acted on the verbal testimony of W without any objection from H.
About five years later H asked to modify alimony. H alleged a substantial change in circumstances in that W was living openly with an unrelated male for a prolonged period. H’s motion was denied on the basis that the family court lacked jurisdiction to modify the payments because the marital settlement agreement was a viable contract and H appealed.
ISSUE: May a written contract be modified by a subsequent oral agreement even if the parties have failed to employ the particular method of modification as specified in the contract?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A written contract may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement even if the parties have failed to employ the particular method of modification as specified in the contract.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The testimony of the parties on the day of the entry of the divorce judgment clearly established that they intended the agreement to merge into the divorce agreement. W on direct was asked and responded affirmatively that the agreement merged. There was no objection from H. With the intention of the parties being the controlling factor when determining if a merger has occurred we must say from this evidence that the contract merged. Once merged the agreement lost all vitality as the judgment of divorce then controls the rights, privileges, and obligations of the respective parties.
DISPOSITION: Vacated and remanded.
Goldman v. Goldman, support and maintenance, property settlement agreement, alimony, contracts, merger, law, case briefs, family law