Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Wheamei (Mother)(M) and Richard (Father) (F) were married and had two children, Robert and Theresa. At the time of the divorce in 1983, M and F entered into a property settlement agreement. M would have physical and legal custody of Daughter and that F would have physical and legal custody of Son. F agreed to pay to M the sum of $25.00 per week as child support for the Daughter. F also agreed that upon obtaining regular employment or upon any increase in salary the aforementioned support award will be increased in accordance with the Guidelines. F obtained employment and increases in salary beginning in 1985, but he never increased the amount of child support in accordance with the Guidelines as specified in the Agreement. M never sought an increase in the support amount. When Daughter turned eighteen in February 2000, M filed a petition for special relief requesting enforcement of the property settlement agreement and a finding of contempt of court. M sought to collect 'total support/arrearages' based upon H's salary increases over the almost eighteen years the agreement had been in effect. After turning eighteen, Daughter filed a petition to intervene as a party to M's action. Daughter claimed a 'legally enforceable interest' as a third party intended beneficiary under the Agreement. The trial court found that Daughter was an intended beneficiary to the Agreement and granted her petition to intervene. M withdrew as party-petitioner, leaving Daughter and F as party-opponents. The trial court entered an order in favor of Daughter and against F. F owed $59,292.80. F appealed and challenged the trial court's decision to allow Daughter to intervene as an intended beneficiary. The court applied the two-part test set forth in Guy: (1) the recognition of the beneficiary's right must be 'appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties,' and (2) the performance must 'satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary' or 'the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.' It found that Daughter was an intended beneficiary because M intended to give Daughter the benefit of the support payments and because 'the primary intent of the parties in paragraph [nine] of the [Agreement] was to help [Daughter] by providing for her financial support.' The court held that there was 'nothing to prevent [Daughter] from enforcing her right under the [Agreement] to an increased amount of support based on her father's increased earning.' It rejected F's argument that Daughter had no direct right to the payments, but only to her parents' support. F appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co