Divorce cases are often resolved through a negotiated marital settlement agreement (MSA). Such agreements are contracts, and as such they are subject to the basic legal principles of contract formation. Essentially, there must be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other party to form a legally binding MSA.

Court Enforces MSA Despite Party’s Protest Claim of Time-Limited Offer

Of course, things do not always go according to plan. A recent published decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Pattison v. Pattison, illustrates how the negotiation process can break down when each side has a different understanding of whether “acceptance” took place.

This case involved a husband and wife who married in 2016. The parties separated three years later. The husband subsequently sued for divorce, alleging adultery on the part of the wife. The wife responded with her own countersuit, alleging cruelty and constructive desertion by the husband.

Despite the acrimonious start, the parties decided to enter settlement negotiations. On September 25, 2020, the wife’s attorney sent a draft agreement, signed by the wife, to the husband’s attorney for their review and signature. The husband signed the agreement and two related documents three days later, on September 28. The next day, the husband filed the signed agreement with the court and asked for an “absolute divorce” based on mutual consent of the parties.

The wife, however, objected. She denied there was a binding agreement. Specifically, she alleged that when her attorney sent the signed agreement on September 25, it was actually a time-limited offer that the husband had to sign and return that same day–not three days later, as he did. The husband disputed this and alleged there was a binding agreement and asked the court for an order to enforce it.

After a formal hearing on the matter, the trial judge said the signed MSA “indicated a mutual assent by the parties to enter into a voluntary separation and property agreement” as of September 25. The court said the evidence did not support the wife’s position that her acceptance was really a time-limited offer. But even if it was, the contract was still valid based on the “action of the parties,” i.e., both sides remained in contact throughout the process. The court not only granted the husband’s order to enforce the agreement, it also ordered the wife to pay the husband’s attorney fees in connection with the issue.

The wife appealed those orders. But the Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal, explaining that there was no final judgment of divorce yet. Normally only a final order may be reviewed on appeal. There are some exceptions for “collateral orders,” but the enforcement of the MSA did not qualify, the appellate court concluded.

Contact Waldorf Divorce Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/cosa/2022/0186s21.pdf