Goldman v. Goldman

543 A.2d 1304 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H filed a complaint for divorce, and shortly thereafter W filed a counterclaim. Prior to the entry of judgment, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement that provided for H to pay W $1,300 per month for support. When the court entered judgment on W's counterclaim, he merged the property settlement agreement with that judgment. The agreement itself stated that it would not merge into any subsequent divorce judgment and that modification of the agreement would require the signature of both parties. However, the trial judge acted on the verbal testimony of W without any objection from H. About five years later H asked to modify alimony. H alleged a substantial change in circumstances in that W was living openly with an unrelated male for a prolonged period. H's motion was denied on the basis that the family court lacked jurisdiction to modify the payments because the marital settlement agreement was a viable contract. This appeal resulted.