What Constitutes “Acceptance” of a Maryland Divorce Settlement?
While divorce is always a difficult process for the people involved, one thing to keep in mind is that most marriages do not end in lengthy or costly litigation. The vast majority of couples are able to resolve their differences through a negotiated settlement. Obviously, in some cases the parties may require some help from a mediator or even their respective divorce attorneys. But at the end of the day, the parties can sign a settlement agreement and submit it to the court for final approval.
Maryland Supreme Court Enforces Cover Letter Deadline
It is important to understand that a divorce settlement agreement is a binding legal contract. This means it is subject to many of the same rules that govern other types of contracts under Maryland law. One such rule is that a contract only exists when there is “mutual assent” between the parties as to the terms of the agreement.
The Supreme Court of Maryland recently addressed a divorce case, Pattison v. Pattison, where the parties disputed whether such mutual assent existed with respect to their own negotiated settlement agreement. Here is what happened: The husband filed for divorce in 2019. On Friday, September 25, 2020, the wife’s divorce attorney sent a proposed settlement agreement to the husband’s divorce attorney, which the wife had already signed. An attached cover letter said the enclosed agreement resolved all “outstanding disputes on condition that the Agreement … be executed by [the husband] today.”
The husband, however, did not sign the agreement until the following Monday, September 28, 2020. The next day, the husband amended his divorce lawsuit to seek enforcement of what he considered a legally binding settlement agreement. The wife insisted the husband rejected the agreement because he did not execute the contract “today,” meaning September 25, 2020, as demanded in her attorney’s cover letter.
Notwithstanding the wife’s objection, the trial court agreed with the husband that the parties had formed a binding contract. The judge did grant the parties a divorce but declined to incorporate the terms of the proposed settlement into the final decree.
In 2024, the Appellate Court of Maryland, considering the wife’s appeal, held that the trial judge was incorrect and that “no contract was formed because Husband failed to execute the Agreement by the end of the day on September 25, 2020, as required by Wife’s explicitly stated condition.” This prompted the husband to appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court’s ruling in favor of the wife. With respect to contract law, the wife made an offer subject to the condition of acceptance by a certain deadline. When the husband failed to accept by that deadline, he rejected the wife’s offer and made a counter-offer, which the wife in turn rejected. The Supreme Court said that just because the wife imposed her condition in a cover letter rather than the text of the actual settlement agreement was “irrelevant.”
Contact a La Plata Property Distribution Lawyer Today
Ideally, divorcing partners can resolve the division of marital property and other issues through a negotiated settlement. In some cases, however, litigation may be necessary. Regardless of your situation, our La Plata property distribution attorney can help you in achieving a fair and equitable result. Contact Fanning Law today at 301-934-3620 to schedule a consultation. We serve clients in LaPlata, Waldorf, and Lexington Park.
Source:
mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2025/33a24.pdf
