In divorce cases, details matter. Sometimes, seemingly minor details may matter a great deal. These details may be factual matters or they may be matters of law. A recent Maryland Supreme Court ruling highlights that point in a case centering around the validity of a marital settlement agreement. Whatever nuances your divorce case presents, you can best protect yourself by retaining an experienced Maryland divorce lawyer to represent you.
The spouses in the Supreme Court case, T.P. and D.P., each filed for absolute divorce in 2019. On Friday, September 25, 2020, the wife’s attorney sent the husband’s attorney a package containing a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, which the wife had already signed. The package’s cover letter stated, among other things, that the agreement was conditional upon the husband signing that same day.
The husband indicated a willingness to sign, but stated that he could not do so until the next business day. Ultimately, the husband did sign the agreement on the following Monday (the next business day).
The husband sought to enforce the agreement, while the wife fought to avoid the contract’s enforcement. The crux of the wife’s argument centered on the cover letter, which, she argued, demonstrated that her offer expired on the 25th and, because the husband signed the document on the 28th, the agreement was a legal “nullity.”
The trial court ruled in favor of the husband, concluding that the wife had waived the Friday deadline. The trial judge pointed to proof that the husband communicated his inability to sign on Friday and willingness to sign the following Monday, coupled with evidence that the wife did not reject this offer outright but instead demonstrated a willingness to accept a Monday signature.
Another element that weighed heavily in the trial court’s ruling was the timing of the wife’s opposition. Although the husband signed on September 28, the wife did not object to the untimely signature until October 15, after the husband had filed court papers indicating that the parties had completed a settlement agreement.
The case went all the way to the Maryland Supreme Court, where a majority decided that none of that mattered.
The high court noted that the law interprets and dissects divorce settlement agreements the same as it does all other contracts. The court also concluded that the wife’s submission to the husband was a conditional contract offer where the husband failed to meet all of the conditions.
The court’s ruling made it clear that the inclusion of the signature deadline condition in a cover letter instead of “the four corners of the Agreement [was] irrelevant.” Contract law gives an offeror the right to withdraw their offer at any time before the offeree’s acceptance. One way an offeror can do that is to communicate the expiration of the offer in advance, which, according to the court, was what the deadline provision in the cover letter did.
The Wife’s Inaction Did Not Create a Waiver
Additionally, the wife’s inaction after the husband signed the agreement did not amount to a waiver. The court determined that, under the precepts of contract law, the wife’s offer expired on Friday, so the husband’s signature on Monday could not constitute an acceptance of the wife’s offer but could be a new counteroffer from the husband to the wife. However, the wife “had no duty to respond to Husband’s counteroffer, and there is no evidence that she did respond… until she timely filed her [October 15 court papers], in which she unambiguously disputed the validity of the Agreement.” Under those facts, the wife’s conduct was not a waiver.
If you are considering resolving your divorce through the execution of a mutual agreement, you owe it to yourself to contact legal counsel before you sign on the dotted line. The knowledgeable Maryland family law attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC can help you navigate the process and ensure you get an outcome that is fair to you. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to set up your consultation.