Howard and Molly married in 1983 and had a son, Sam. They divorced in 2004, at w

Question

Howard and Molly married in 1983 and had a son, Sam. They divorced in 2004, at which time Sam was 19 years old, living at home, and attending college full-time. The divorce decree included a written property settlement agreement, which both parties duly signed and which included an integration clause. While negotiating the contract, Howard and Molly agreed that Howard should help Molly support Sam until he finally "left the nest." They captured that sentiment in the agreement by stipulating that Howard would "pay to Molly, as trustee for Sam, $500/month for the support and education of Sam, so long as Sam continues his college education." Howard duly made those monthly payments until 2006. At that time, Sam dropped out of school, moved away from home, got married, and took a job to support his new wife and child. Howard stopped making payments in support of Sam. In 2008, Sam resumed his college studies on a part-time basis. He managed to fund them himself until 2010, at which time he asked Molly for financial help. Molly had not objected in 2005 when Howard had stopped supporting Sam. Nor had she asked Howard to resume making payments in 2008, when Sam had returned to school. In 2010, though, she told both Sam and Howard that she would resume her obligations as trustee for Sam, supporting his education and receiving payments under the divorce decree's property settlement. Howard replied that he no longer felt obligated to make those payments. Notwithstanding Howard's reply, Molly encouraged Sam to resume his education at her expense. She raised money by hurriedly selling some rare family heirlooms. The rushed nature of her sale caused her to get only $50,000 for the antiques, even though an appraiser assured her that she would get twice that amount if she could wait for the right buyer. Sam has been back in school for six months, now. Molly has brought a breach of contract suit against Howard, who has steadfastly refused to make support payments.

ASSIGNMENT: Discuss the rights and remedies of the parties under contract law. Cite all relevant laws.

Explanation / Answer

This can be regarded as a normal divorce case with a clause of Child Support for which a contract has been documented which states that Howard would pay to Molly, as trustee for Sam, $500/month for the support and education of Sam, so long as Sam continues his college education. Therefore Howard is liable to pay this amount every month until Sam is pursuing his college education. The Breach of contract suit brought by Molly against Howard will not be justified because in the contract there was a clause which stated that Howard should help Molly support Sam until he finally "left the nest." and as Sam actually moved away from the house for getting married and doing a job the contract remains no longer valid and Howard's refusal to support payments is legal and there is no breach of contract in this context.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.