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

In this case the contract during the support duly mentioned 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. Sam needs to pay the amount to Molly until Sam completes his college education and hence the Breach of contract suit against Howard is justified and he need to compensate the amount. In this case of Child Support I believe that Howard stopped payments for Sam because he left college and started working and married but after a period of time he resumed his college education which was incomplete and here Howards also has a point to fight for because he discontinued and was employed. The contract actually does not possess such clause in which discontinuation of the course may be considered as a factor, hence Howard needs to compensate the education of Sam in this case.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

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