.webp)
.png)
In our blog articles on the divorce process, one thing we have attempted to emphasize repeatedly is the importance of seeking private resolutions to divorce-related disputes. As a general rule, whenever private agreements can be reached, this is a superior solution compared to litigation, and also compared to mediation in many cases. However, parties need to be aware of the fact that private agreements must be handled carefully. If parties reach a private agreement, and develop private contracts, those contracts may be scrutinized I the parties seek to modify the agreement later in the future. And, as is always the case, the slightest mistake or error can end up having tremendously important consequences in this respect.
In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a very well-paid physician, ended up learning the hard way about the importance of contract language. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Overview of Mullen v. Robbins (2017)
The couple in this case were able to reach a private agreement on numerous issues when their marriage dissolved. One of the issues which was privately resolved was alimony. The husband in this case was a high-earning physician; on a yearly basis, he earned close to $290,000. The wife, on the other hand, had dealt with cancer during the marriage, and consequently had far lesser earning power. The agreement on alimony reflected this discrepancy in earning potential, and so the husband agreed to pay $5,500 per month to his ex-wife for a period of 6 years. The agreement was executed in 2010.
In 2015, the ex-wife returned to court seeking to modify the terms of the alimony agreement. She wanted to modify the terms to receive $4,000 per month indefinitely. She argued that her health problems had rendered her unable to achieve financial stability because of her diminished earning power, and that this constituted a ‘change of circumstances’ sufficient to alter the agreement. The ex-husband argued that the original agreement should stand unchanged because the language of the agreement itself prevented such alteration. The trial court ruled for the ex-wife, and the ex-husband then appealed.
Outcome & Discussion
The appellate division upheld the trial court ruling. In order to modify a private alimony agreement, the party seeking modification needs to cite a ‘material change in circumstances,’ otherwise the court won’t alter the agreement. Exactly what constitutes a material change in circumstances is a matter of law to be decided by the court, but past examples may be used to help better understand the contours of this concept.
In this case, the court was convinced by the ex-wife’s argument that her present physical condition rendered her unable to attain financial stability. The ex-wife expected to become physically healthier at the time the original agreement was signed, and so the court held that this decline in physical health was sufficient to change the agreement. The husband’s argument that that agreement contained language such that no future alteration was allowable was rejected. To be sure, private agreements for alimony may be unmodifiable, but this can only occur when the agreement contains very specific language to that effect. To be unmodifiable, the contract needs to state specifically that a court may not alter the agreement at some later date. As this was not contained in this particular agreement, the court ruled in favor of the party seeking modification.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you want more information on alimony modification, or another related topic, or if you have a current case which needs attention, reach out to the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-202-3270.
.png)
.png)
.png)
