.webp)
One of the critical components of any contractual agreement is time. During the contract formation process, when certain things occur may often be as significant as what things occur. This may be the case, as an example, when a party makes an offer with an acceptance deadline: if the offeree (the party receiving the offer) fails to give firm acceptance by the deadline, the law treats this as though the offer has been formally rejected. Of course, offerees can always produce counteroffers in response, but without any extenuating circumstances the law states that no enforceable agreement has been formed.
How does this pertain to family law? As we have seen in the past, family law courts often apply contract law principles when cases involve contractual disputes. In a recent case of Pattison v. Pattison (2025), which went to the Maryland Supreme Court, the court reviewed a decision which dealt with an offer with a firm acceptance deadline. We discussed this same case during its appellate phase, but let’s circle back and go over the essentials so we can firmly digest its critical points.
Facts of the Case
The husband petitioned for divorce and the wife made a counterclaim. The parties attempted to use mediation to settle disputes, but that was ultimately unsuccessful. The wife made a settlement offer to the husband which she conveyed through her attorney; the offer included a Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, a promissory note, and a guaranty of the note. Most importantly, the offer had a firm acceptance deadline of September 25, 2020.
The husband failed to sign and accept the necessary documents by September 25, 2020, effectively rejecting the offer. On September 28, 2020, however, the husband signed the documents and sent the signed documents to the wife and her counsel. The husband assumed that his acceptance on September 28 was valid, and so the husband immediately moved to incorporate the signed settlement agreement into the final divorce order. Although the husband was successful at the trial court (‘Circuit Court’) level, but was then unsuccessful at the appellate court level. The husband then petitioned the supreme court for review.
Ruling & Discussion
After its analysis, the Supreme Court of Maryland concluded that the appellate division’s determinations were correct. In this situation, the logic is quite simple: with a firm acceptance deadline such as the one used here, the husband’s failure to sign by the deadline constituted a clear rejection of the offer. The fact that the husband later signed the settlement offer, returned it, and moved to enforce it is really irrelevant.
Again, this is an excellent example of how knowledge of certain contract principles may be highly beneficial for family law litigants. In this scenario, the deadline was quite obviously firm, and a capable attorney would have understood the implications of that sort of deadline. In reality, the husband’s entire attempt to have an additional review at the supreme court level resulted in a simple waste of resources. Perhaps, if the husband had proposed a counteroffer, instead of making a late acceptance of the original offer, the wife may have been more agreeable to the terms. But, unchanged, the case demonstrates the relatively straightforward application of basic contract law principles.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If readers want to know more about contract issues in family law contexts, or about the general divorce process, or about property division, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
