Merging Divorce Agreement

If the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment and the divorce deci­sion are incon­sis­tent, whether the agree­ment sur­vives or not, the inten­tion of the par­ties is con­trolled. Moore v. Moore, 389 Mass. 21 (1983). In Moore, the ques­tion was whether the lan­guage of the divorce decree re-entered the agree­ment or whether the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment of the par­ties pre­dict­ed that […]

If the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment and the divorce deci­sion are incon­sis­tent, whether the agree­ment sur­vives or not, the inten­tion of the par­ties is con­trolled. Moore v. Moore, 389 Mass. 21 (1983). In Moore, the ques­tion was whether the lan­guage of the divorce decree re-entered the agree­ment or whether the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment of the par­ties pre­dict­ed that it should sur­vive the divorce deci­sion in a con­trolled man­ner. The Court decid­ed that, as stat­ed in the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment of the par­ties, their inten­tion was that their sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment should sur­vive as a con­tract inde­pen­dent of the divorce decree. The pro­vi­sions of an agree­ment that merge into a divorce decree may be amend­ed in the event of a sub­stan­tial and sub­stan­tial change in cir­cum­stances. The merged pro­vi­sions can only be applied by fil­ing an appeal for non-com­pli­ance before the estate and fam­i­ly court. The deci­sion to merge or sur­vive cer­tain pro­vi­sions of the sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment is a crit­i­cal part of the nego­ti­a­tion process and not a deci­sion before the judge. Par­ties who enter into a sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment with­out under­stand­ing the impor­tance and impor­tance of “merg­er” and “sur­vival” may find them­selves in dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tions in the future if faced with chang­ing cir­cum­stances. Seek advice from an expe­ri­enced divorce lawyer on all the terms of your divorce agree­ment, even on the boil­er platform.

There­fore, when would a court not accept an agree­ment or provision(s) of an agree­ment in a court order? Well, this is a very fact-spe­cif­ic ques­tion, and the case law on this is quite thin. Of course, the typ­i­cal argu­ments in favor of repeal­ing a sep­a­ra­tion agree­ment (i.e.: no meet­ing of head, coer­cion, coer­cion, impi­toy­a­bil­i­ty, inca­pac­i­ty, etc.) con­vince a court not to inte­grate. How­ev­er, the inval­i­da­tion of an agree­ment or pro­vi­sion is not a nec­es­sary con­di­tion for a court to decide not to include it. For exam­ple, a court could sim­ply decide not to include an agree­ment or pro­vi­sion in it, because the cir­cum­stances have changed sub­stan­tial­ly between the date of ini­tial exe­cu­tion of the agree­ment and the date of fil­ing of the appli­ca­tion for incor­po­ra­tion. It is eas­i­er to answer this ques­tion with the help of an exam­ple. Assum­ing anoth­er cou­ple, Jack and Jane, enter into a set­tle­ment agree­ment that will then be includ­ed in their final series of divorces and merged. Under the terms of the agree­ment (1), Suzy John must pay $500 a month in fam­i­ly allowances until her child is of age, and then (2) Suzy must pay $5,000 per semes­ter for the child‘s school fees. .

. .

INGEN KOMMENTARER

Kommentarfeltet til denne artikkelen er nå stengt. Ta kontakt med redaksjonen dersom du har synspunkter på artikkelen.

til toppen