Clark v. Clark (2017): Creating a Valid Settlement Agreement

Before you sign any potentially binding agreement, you should be sure to read through that document carefully and thoroughly. Whenever you commit your signature to something, and there is the possibility of having your signature enforced by a court in the event of a mishap, you should always know precisely what you are signing. One of the worst things which can happen to someone is to be surprised about the interpretation or meaning of a given term within an agreement. This type of surprise can be very unpleasant, especially when it occurs in the context of family court.

In the case of Clark v. Clark (2017), an ex-wife was badly surprised when she discovered that a certain term within a settlement agreement didn’t have the meaning she assumed it had. Let’s examine this case in detail.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case were relatively well-to-do, and had accumulated substantial assets during the course of their marriage. Hence, the marital settlement agreement was a highly significant aspect of the divorce. According to the wife, the husband woke up the wife at around 5:30am and obtained her signature on a private marital settlement agreement which referenced all the couple’s marital property. The settlement agreement had separate columns for what the wife would receive and what the husband would receive; one entry in the husband’s column simply included “$150,000,” with no other clarifying language. The husband contended that this entry meant that he was supposed to receive a lump sum of $150,000 because he had decided to forego regular alimony payments following the divorce. Furthermore, the husband argued that this lump sum was fair in view of the fact that the wife received the couple’s successful business in the agreement, and this business had substantial present and future potential value.

The wife signed the agreement, as did the husband. The fact that the wife voluntarily signed the agreement, without any evidence of duress or coercion, was critical in the case. Furthermore, the husband contended that the discussion took place at around 8:30am in the morning, not 5:30am as the wife had reported.

Outcome & Discussion

Ultimately, the husband was successful in having the marital settlement agreement upheld and enforced by the trial court. Although the entry with the “$150,000” was potentially ambiguous, the court decided that this entry could be reasonably interpreted in the context of the entire settlement agreement. In other words, the husband’s interpretation that the $150,000 was supposed to be a single lump sum, and that it was reasonable given the assets the wife would receive, was in fact a logical and reasonable construction of the contract. The wife attempted to appeal this decision, but her appeal was unsuccessful. One reason why the wife’s appeal was unsuccessful is because she failed to file in a timely manner. The wife needed to wait for the proper time in order to address her concerns about the interpretation of the settlement agreement; she failed to file her appeal at the proper time, and consequently her appeal failed before it had a chance to be decided on its merits. This is a perfect example of the need for adequate representation; if the wife had obtained a competent family law attorney prior to signing the agreement, there is a good chance things would’ve turned out differently.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm Today for Additional Information

If you would like to learn more, get in touch with one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.