We have said it before, but the importance of carefully drafting and completely understanding your marital settlement agreement cannot be understated. Not only is the substance of each provision significant, but the wording used can also make a world of difference. For example, whether or not a certain provision is self-executing (meaning it takes effect automatically upon the occurrence of a certain act or event without the need for court intervention) depends entirely on how it is worded, as the case of Weidlein v. Weidlein demonstrates.
The Case: Weidlein v. Weidlein
In the Weidlein case, the former couple’s settlement agreement provided that the ex-husband’s spousal support obligation would terminate forever if the ex-wife cohabitated with a man for one (1) week or more.
Years after the agreement was signed, the former wife sued the ex-husband for contempt, claiming that he owed her over twelve (12) years’ worth of alimony—close to $450,000. The ex-husband responded by claiming that his support obligation had terminated over 12 years ago, because the ex-wife had cohabitated with another man for more than a week (on multiple occasions). This claim was corroborated by the testimony of the couple’s children. The ex-husband argued that his duty to pay alimony had automatically terminated upon the ex-wife’s cohabitation according to the settlement agreement, making the provision self-executing.
Court Ruling: Non-Self-Executing Provisions
However, the trial court disagreed, ruling that the support termination provision was not self-executing and required a judicial determination before the ex-husband could stop paying. Unsatisfied with the decision, the former husband appealed.
The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, explaining that self-executing clauses for spousal support termination only exist when there is no reasonable debate over whether the event triggering termination actually occurred. Examples of such events include specific dates, times, or milestones like a birthday or death. In this case, there could be reasonable debate over whether the former wife cohabitated with another man for more than a week, making the clause non-self-executing.
Proving Cohabitation and Its Impact
Despite the ruling that the provision was not self-executing, the Court still determined that the former husband was not liable for the back spousal support. The ex-husband had successfully proven that the ex-wife cohabitated with another man for more than a week. Although the provision was not self-executing, it also did not require the ex-husband to prove cohabitation by any specific standard, such as clear and convincing evidence. Because the ex-husband showed that cohabitation had occurred, the Court found that the ex-wife’s right to alimony payments never vested after cohabitation began.
Conclusion: The Importance of Careful Drafting
Although the alimony provision was not self-executing, this case illustrates how courts can enforce the spirit and intention of the parties involved. However, it also underscores the importance of careful and specific drafting of marital settlement agreements. Future parties may not be as fortunate as the ex-husband in this case.
Legal Assistance for Marital Settlement Agreements
If you are in the process of drafting a marital or property settlement agreement, or if you would like to enforce or modify an existing one, you need the help of a qualified family law and divorce attorney. The family lawyers at DiPietro Family Law Group have decades of experience in handling family law issues in Northern Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. Our attorneys can help develop provisions that protect your interests and achieve the results you desire.
Contact us today for a consultation at (888) 530-4374.