Pattison v. Pattison (2024) & the Supreme Court’s Upholding of Traditional Contract Principles

As we have pointed out numerous times before, marital contracts – i.e. prenuptial agreements and marital settlement agreements – are treated just like other non-marital contracts in many ways. A lot of people assume that these agreements are “special,” that their character as marital agreements somehow renders them outside the bounds of normal contract principles, but this is not the case. This is why it is essential to have the assistance of a qualified family law attorney who understands basic contract law principles when developing any sort of marital agreement.  

‍

Back in 2024, we discussed a case – Pattison v. Pattison – which went before a Maryland appellate court which involved an acceptance deadline in a marital settlement agreement. Recently, the Maryland Supreme Court reviewed this case, as the losing party in the appellate level applied for a final review. Let’s go over what was decided by the Supreme Court.

‍

Factual Posture of the Case

The facts of the case can be reiterated here: the wife (through her counsel) sent a property settlement agreement to the husband for acceptance. But, the wife included a cover letter which indicated that the terms of this agreement were only valid through Friday, the 25th. If the husband failed to sign the agreement by that deadline, then the offer would be officially revoked. The husband sent a communication back to the wife which indicated that he needed more time, beyond the 25th, to sign the agreement. The wife didn’t respond to the husband’s communication, and ultimately the husband signed the agreement on Monday the 28th and then returned the signed document.  

‍

The husband attempted to argue that the agreement was valid and enforceable, as the wife’s lack of protest against the husband’s decision to sign on the 28th effectively constituted an extension of the deadline. The wife argued that the contract was invalid and unenforceable because the husband failed to sign by the deadline. The husband won at the trial court level and then lost at the appellate court level.

‍

Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion

The Maryland Supreme Court emphasized the fact that traditional contract principles govern marital agreements such as the one under examination in this case. Traditional contract law holds that the offeror (the party extending the offer) can unilaterally revoke an offer at anytime prior to acceptance, unless there is explicit language to the contrary. In the instant case, the effect of the deadline was to revoke the offer immediately following the passing of the deadline. The husband’s signing after the deadline did not have the effect of rendering the agreement valid; the wife’s conduct following the husband’s late acceptance did nothing to change this situation.  

‍

This case gives an important lesson on the effect of certain language in property settlement agreements, as well as the general importance of having qualified counsel. The husband obviously fought a long battle to try to have his late acceptance approved, but he likely could’ve saved himself this lengthy (and expensive) battle if he had procured proper counsel at the outset. Parties need attorneys who are familiar with contract law and are able to relay the appropriate counsel in the right moments.  

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

To learn more about property settlement agreements, prenuptial contracts, the application of contract principles to marital contracts, or any other related topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.

‍