.webp)
As a general rule, those going through a divorce should take the time to consider developing an independent settlement agreement. The reason is because private or independent settlement agreements can be highly beneficial: when worded properly, these agreements can streamline the divorce process in a very powerful and cost-effective way. However, the key phrase in this previous sentence is “worded properly,” because the details are absolutely critical when thinking about a settlement agreement. Even a slight change or alteration can have a profound effect. In the case of Rose v. Rose, the husband realized the significance of the details a bit too late. Let’s look at that case more closely.
Factual Overview of Rose v. Rose
The couple of this case divorced in 2011. The couple developed a private settlement agreement, and this settlement agreement provided the wife with a fixed rate for alimony for a fixed number of years. The agreement held that the alimony would cease whenever certain conditions came about; for instance, if the wife remarried, or the husband died, or the wife began cohabitating with a new romantic partner, any of these conditions would lead to the discontinuation of the alimony.
After the divorced was finalized, the wife eventually began cohabitating with a new partner. Accordingly, the husband moved to have the alimony portion of the settlement agreement discontinued; he also asked the court for reimbursement for certain payments because the wife was allegedly cohabitating even while the husband was still making payments. When the husband presented his evidence of the cohabitation to the trial court, he lost the motion. Then, when he appealed, the appellate court ruled against him. The husband appeared to have an “open and shut” case because he presented concrete evidence of the new cohabitation relationship involving the wife. The key thing, however, was that the husband needed to present very specific evidence to render the alimony ineffective.
Key Lesson: The Details are All Important
The settlement agreement contained very specific language regarding the enforcement of the alimony provision. Not only did the husband need to provide evidence of the new cohabitating relationship, he needed to conclusively demonstrate certain things with that evidence. For example, the husband needed to show that the new couple shared assets and bank accounts, that they “held themselves out” as a couple publicly, and so forth. Although the husband demonstrated the existence of a new relationship, he failed to satisfy the standard which was specifically included in the settlement agreement. Given that this was the case, the trial court and appellate court were clearly correct in ruling against the husband. Among other things, this shows how the wording within agreements can impose very specific requirements on the parties involved, and the importance of having a qualified attorney to assist in the creation of these agreements.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you want to learn more, give one of the top family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm a call today by dialing 240-493-9116
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
