Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A married couple entered into a premarital agreement prior to their 2015 wedding. The agreement stated that each party’s property, including business interests owned prior to or acquired during the marriage, would remain separate and nonmarital. It also included a provision anticipating that the husband would purchase a condominium, which would become the marital home and, in the event of divorce, its value would be split equally. During the marriage, the couple resided in the condominium, but it remained owned by the husband’s mother, and the husband never purchased it. The couple separated in 2020, and the husband filed for divorce in 2021. Throughout the marriage, the husband acquired and managed various business interests, while both parties maintained separate finances.The Maine District Court in Portland held several hearings to resolve issues related to spousal support, discovery sanctions, and the interpretation and validity of the premarital agreement. The parties stipulated that the agreement was valid but disputed its scope, particularly regarding business interests and the condominium provision. The District Court found that the wife had waived any claim to the husband’s business interests and any increase in their value, and that the agreement did not require the husband to purchase the condominium. The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the wife’s breach-of-contract claim regarding the condominium and awarded her a portion of her requested attorney fees.Upon appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s judgment in part. It held that the wife had clearly waived any claim to the husband’s business interests and their increases in value. However, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the lower court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claim concerning the condominium and in interpreting the agreement as not requiring its purchase. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Hutchinson v. Gomez" on Justia Law

A married couple separated, and their marital settlement agreement (MSA) awarded the family home to the wife, specifying that the net proceeds of any future sale would be split equally. An amendment later required the wife to sign a quitclaim deed, removing her from the title, while retaining her right to half the proceeds upon sale. Disputes arose over whether the wife still had an interest in the home, leading to litigation. A trial court determined that she retained a one-half interest and ultimately ordered the husband to buy out her share. The only remaining issue was the wife’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under the MSA's prevailing party clause.The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County found the wife was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees but limited the amount to $12,500, rather than the nearly $49,000 she claimed. The trial court considered the financial circumstances of both parties, noting that neither had significant income and that the case had been over-litigated. The court reasoned that the fees sought were not “reasonably necessary” under the circumstances and allowed the husband to pay in installments. The court also denied the wife’s request to recalculate the fee award solely under Civil Code section 1717, instead of the Family Code.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that, in marital dissolution cases, even when an MSA includes a prevailing party attorney’s fees clause, the trial court has discretion to consider the losing party’s ability to pay and other equitable factors under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032 when determining the amount of fees. The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the trial court’s decision. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Bowman" on Justia Law

A Canadian citizen married an American citizen in 2017. The couple lived in Canada until 2020, then moved to Hawaii, where the American spouse began working as a physician. The Canadian spouse entered the United States on a tourist visa and soon applied for lawful permanent residency. To support this application, the American spouse signed a federal Affidavit of Support, committing to maintain the non-citizen’s income above 125% of the federal poverty line. The Canadian spouse obtained permanent residency in 2021. Around that time, the marriage ended, and the American spouse moved to Michigan and filed for divorce. In 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and consented divorce judgment in Michigan, in which they resolved all issues—including spousal support—and released any claims against each other.The Canadian spouse later filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that his former spouse had failed to provide the financial support required by the Affidavit of Support. The former spouse moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the divorce judgment precluded the claim. The district court rejected the jurisdictional argument but agreed that claim preclusion under Michigan law barred the lawsuit, and dismissed the action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have under state law, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act. The court ruled that Michigan claim preclusion law applied, and that the prior divorce judgment barred the new lawsuit because the claim could have been raised in the divorce proceedings. The court also rejected arguments that federal law or preemption required a different result. View "Ramgoolam v. Gupta" on Justia Law

Richard Marschner and Roxane Marschner divorced in 2016 after reaching a settlement agreement dividing their marital property. Richard received a lump sum from Roxane’s retirement account, and Roxane was to receive a portion of Richard’s Army National Guard pension and Federal Employees’ Retirement System benefits upon his retirement. The divorce judgment included provisions that if Richard took action to prevent or reduce Roxane’s share of his military retirement pay—including by waiving retirement pay in favor of disability pay—he would be required to indemnify Roxane. Both parties waived spousal support in the original settlement.After Richard was separated from the National Guard for medical reasons, he began receiving military disability retired pay and waived all his retirement pay. When Roxane attempted to collect her share, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service denied her request, stating that disability pay was not divisible under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act. Roxane then sought an amended judgment or redistribution of the marital estate from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District. The district court awarded Roxane spousal support equivalent to her lost share of Richard’s retirement pay, relying on the indemnification provision and reasoning that federal law did not prevent enforcement of the parties’ agreement.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether federal law preempts enforcement of the indemnification provision. The court held that federal law, as interpreted in Howell v. Howell, prohibits state courts from dividing military disability retired pay or enforcing indemnification provisions, even if contractually agreed upon. The district court’s award of spousal support was deemed an impermissible division of disability pay. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the amended judgment. View "Marschner v. Marschner" on Justia Law

A businessman and rancher in South Dakota, after dating a Colorado horse breeder for nearly a year, proposed marriage. Shortly before the wedding, he presented her with a prenuptial agreement drafted by his attorney. The agreement waived her right to any share of his estate after his death. The parties signed the agreement at the attorney’s office minutes before their civil ceremony. They were later married in Italy and had two children. The businessman died approximately eight years later. The surviving spouse then petitioned for an elective share of the estate and a family allowance, claiming her signature on the agreement was involuntary and the agreement was unconscionable.The Fourth Judicial Circuit Court of Dewey County, South Dakota, held a trial on her petition. The court granted her request for a family allowance but denied her petition for an elective share. The court found she voluntarily signed the agreement and that it was not unconscionable, emphasizing her education, business experience, and opportunity to review the agreement or consult independent counsel. The court also found that the financial disclosures provided were fair and reasonable, and that the terms of the agreement, including a provision for her in the event of divorce, were not disproportionate or unjust. Stephanie appealed the denial of her elective share.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that the prenuptial agreement was voluntarily executed and was not unconscionable under South Dakota law. It found no clear error in the circuit court’s factual findings and determined that the financial disclosure and circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement satisfied statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity and enforceability of the prenuptial agreement and the waiver of the elective share. View "Estate Of Webb" on Justia Law

A husband and wife entered into a premarital agreement before their 2018 marriage, which set forth a comprehensive division of assets in case of divorce. The agreement categorized both parties’ assets and anticipated inheritances as separate property, except for their marital home. It specified that, upon divorce, the wife would receive 50% of the increase in the appraised value of the marital home, paid by the husband in installments. The agreement also required proportional contributions to living expenses, allocation of taxes, and provided for attorney’s fees if either party breached the agreement.After their separation in 2021, the husband filed for divorce in 2023. Both parties sought enforcement of the premarital agreement in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Family Division. The wife moved to enforce the agreement, including her share of the marital home’s appreciation and attorney’s fees, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over the home designated as separate property. The husband claimed offsets for damages the wife allegedly caused to the home and for her failure to pay household expenses and taxes. The family division granted the wife’s motion, enforced the agreement in her favor, and awarded attorney’s fees, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the husband’s counterclaims, which it said belonged in civil court.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the family division had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the premarital agreement—including claims of breach—within the context of divorce proceedings under Vermont statutes. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the family division to determine whether the wife materially breached the premarital agreement and to consider appropriate remedies, if any, consistent with principles governing such contracts. View "Gade v. Gade" on Justia Law

A married couple underwent in vitro fertilization and created two frozen embryos, signing a written agreement with the IVF provider that specified options for disposing of the embryos in the event of legal separation or divorce. The agreement offered several choices, including discarding the embryos, donating them, or making them available to one partner if desired. The couple selected and initialed the option stating the embryos would be “made available to the partner if he/she wishes.” After the couple separated, the husband sought to have the embryos discarded, while the wife wanted to use them to attempt pregnancy.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the husband filed a motion to discard the embryos, and the wife requested immediate rights to them. Following an evidentiary hearing at which both parties acknowledged the agreement and their signatures, the court found the contract valid, clear, and unambiguous, and awarded the embryos to the wife. The court issued a minute order and later a formal order reflecting this decision.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, determined the order was not directly appealable but exercised its discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Reviewing the IVF agreement independently, the appellate court held that when parties have entered a valid contract specifying the disposition of embryos in the event of divorce, that agreement governs. The court found the contract’s language unambiguous and concluded the embryos should be made available to the wife, as specified. The court further found no violation of public policy or constitutional rights and denied the husband’s petition, affirming that the wife was entitled to the embryos under the contract. View "Pham v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between two formerly married individuals regarding possession of their cat, Yasmine, following their divorce in 2015. Their Marital Property Settlement Agreement (MPSA) specified that the wife would be awarded possession of the cat, but the husband would care for Yasmine until the wife requested possession. If the husband’s new residence did not permit cats after the sale of the marital home, he was required to notify the wife, who then had 20 days to take custody or arrange for the cat’s care. After the marital home was sold in 2016, the husband notified the wife, but she was unable to take possession or arrange care for Yasmine immediately and requested more time. The husband agreed to a short extension, but the wife did not act within that period, and the cat remained with the husband. Several years later, in 2023, the wife sought custody of Yasmine, but the husband refused, claiming she had forfeited her rights under the MPSA.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, held a hearing in January 2024 on the wife’s motion for contempt, alleging the husband violated the MPSA. The court found that the husband had provided proper notice, the wife was aware of this, and she failed to take the cat or arrange for its care within the agreed-upon timeframe. The court denied the contempt motion and issued its findings and order in February 2024. Subsequent motions by the wife for reconsideration and an out-of-time appeal were denied or deemed denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the MPSA did not grant the wife an indefinite right to possess Yasmine and that her rights under the agreement expired months after the time extension, not years later. The court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of the contempt motion. View "Marriage of Burgard & Jacobsen" on Justia Law

After the dissolution of their marriage, Jane and Kenton Girard became involved in prolonged legal proceedings regarding custody of their two minor children. Following Kenton's remarriage to Marissa Girard, the Illinois state court added Marissa as a party to the postjudgment custody dispute in 2023. The situation grew more complicated when Kenton filed a cross-claim against Marissa over a postnuptial agreement, which he argued did not obligate him to indemnify her for legal expenses or lost earnings related to the custody litigation. Marissa responded by removing the entire case to federal court, asserting the existence of a federal question.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the removal and determined that the case did not present a federal question. The court found that the dispute revolved around state-law issues of contract and domestic relations, and therefore remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Marissa appealed this remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. However, the Seventh Circuit dismissed her appeal, noting that remand orders are generally not appealable unless the case was removed under specific statutory provisions, which did not apply here.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit then addressed a motion for sanctions under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, filed by Jane Girard. The court held that Marissa’s appeal was frivolous, both because removal to federal court was unwarranted and because the remand order was not appealable. The court awarded Jane damages in the amount of $2,808.75 for fees and costs incurred in defending the appeal. View "Girard v. Girard" on Justia Law

A married couple, who wed in 2020 and share a young child, purchased an engineering business together using loans secured by the wife’s premarital home. After their separation in 2023, the wife petitioned for divorce. The parties entered into interim agreements regarding custody, child support, and business management, but the husband repeatedly violated these orders by failing to make required payments, misusing business funds, and withholding financial disclosures. The wife raised concerns about the husband’s substance abuse and erratic behavior, providing evidence of his alcohol and marijuana use, as well as incidents of intoxication during child exchanges and at work. The husband denied these allegations but admitted to some problematic behavior in written communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held multiple hearings, finding the husband in contempt several times for violating court orders. At trial, the court heard testimony and reviewed evidence regarding the husband’s parenting, financial conduct, and the parties’ competing proposals for the business. The court found the wife more credible, sanctioned the husband for discovery violations, and ultimately awarded her primary custody of the child, with the husband’s parenting time to be phased in only after he completed chemical dependency and mental health evaluations. The court also awarded the wife sole ownership of the business and her premarital home, requiring her to assume all related debts.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decisions. It held that the finding regarding the husband’s failure to make full financial disclosures was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in conditioning the husband’s parenting time on completion of evaluations or in awarding the business to the wife, as these decisions were equitable and consistent with Montana law. View "In re Marriage of Boeshans" on Justia Law