Rose v. Rose (2022) & Alimony from Previous Settlement Agreements

Published on
October 12, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Divorce

Settlement agreements can be a good way to resolve marital disputes privately between spouses during a divorce. Litigating issues – meaning resolving those issues in court – can be very costly and time-consuming, and spouses prefer to settle issues whenever possible. However, readers should know that private settlement agreements always need to be negotiated very carefully. Otherwise, a party might end up agreeing to terms that aren’t palatable over the long term. In the case of Rose v. Rose (2022), an older gentleman found himself in a bit of a quandary when he agreed to settlement terms that ultimately became unfavorable.

Facts & Outcome of the Case

After 39 years of marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Rose obtained a divorce in 2014, and they reached a private settlement agreement. The agreement dealt specifically with property division and alimony. The agreement stated that the ex-husband would pay an alimony of $10,000 (per month). However, the agreement also stated that the alimony amount would change to 36.36% of the husband’s yearly income starting in 2019 unless the alimony obligation were terminated or modified by a court before that date. In 2020, the ex-husband went to court and attempted to reduce the alimony from its current $10,000 per month. The court ultimately agreed to reduce the ex-husband’s monthly obligation to $4,000. Subsequently, Mr. Rose argued that an error was committed when the trial court didn’t preserve the “automatic reduction provision” within the property settlement agreement. However, upon review, the appellate court stated that the trial court was correct in not preserving this provision because Mr. Rose did modify the obligation in his action with the court. So, although he attempted to minimize his obligation, Mr. Rose created a larger obligation for himself than otherwise.

Lessons from Rose v. Rose

There are a few lessons that we can take away from this case. Still, perhaps the most critical lesson is the importance of obtaining adequate counsel before finalizing a property settlement agreement. As mentioned, settlement agreements can be a very attractive option in a divorce because these agreements tend to minimize costs and stress; however, if the terms of the agreement aren’t favorable, especially over a long time, they can end up causing a whole lot of problems. Furthermore, once the terms of an agreement have been finalized, you can’t unilaterally revoke them. Hence, it’s imperative that the parties fully intend to follow through with the terms, no matter what. A good attorney would’ve been able to counsel Mr. Rose and let him know the implications of the contractual terms to which he agreed; an attorney could’ve pointed out that agreeing to an “automatic reduction provision” isn’t wise if that provision prohibits any modification. Unfortunately, sometimes valuable lessons come at a high price, which was certainly the case here with Rose v. Rose.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

agreement|Alimony|Automatic reduction provision|Counsel|Divorce|Divorce lawyer|Family attorney|Family Law|Marriage issue|Maryland Divorce Lawyer|Maryland Family Lawyer|Maryland Law|Maryland lawyer|Private Settlement|Property Agreement|Provision|Rose v. Rose|Settlement|Settlement agreement

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.