Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
In October 2008, F and M, who were involved in a romantic relationship, entered into a contract in which they agreed that if their relationship resulted in the birth of a child, M would have primary physical custody and F would have specified visitation rights and that if F sought court modification of these terms he would pay M $10,000 for each such attempt. M alleged that the parties entered into the Agreement on October 17, 2008, that at that time F was a practicing attorney and that he had provided M with 'legal representation in various legal matters.' M alleged that F, along with a colleague at F's firm drafted the Agreement. The parties had a son, and F filed a complaint for custody in December 2010. M then filed a complaint alleging that F had failed to abide by his contractual promise to make the required $10,000 payments. F asserted that the $10,000 modification provision of the Agreement violated public policy and that the negligent misrepresentation and fraud causes of action were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The trial court entered the order sustaining F's preliminary objections and dismissing F's amended complaint with prejudice. The trial court then noted that custody agreements between parents are subject to court modification in the best interests of the child. It held that imposing a fee to pay $10,000 to file a modification of child custody is against the public policy of assuring continuing contact between child and parent. M filed a notice of appeal, and the case was assigned to a three-judge panel.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co