Cole, J. v. Cole, L.
Cole, J. v. Cole, L. No. 606 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Husband and Wife met with Husband’s attorney in April 2015 and reviewed a two‑page handwritten list allocating marital assets; attorney made notes during the joint meeting.
- Parties discussed values (home appraisal, furnishings, vehicles, retirement accounts) and agreed on distributions totaling roughly $230,000 to Wife and $234,500 to Husband.
- Attorney Kelly told the parties she would draft a written agreement for them to sign the following week.
- Wife later left a voicemail declining to sign; Husband then told counsel not to prepare the written document, so no written agreement was executed.
- Husband filed a petition to confirm the settlement agreement and stay Wife’s spousal‑support claim; the trial court concluded an enforceable oral agreement existed and entered a divorce decree affirming that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral postnuptial/marital settlement agreement is enforceable | An oral agreement reached by the parties (with counsel present) constituted a meeting of the minds and is enforceable even if parties intended to reduce it to writing later | Oral postnuptial agreements are unenforceable; statute/Statute of Frauds and § 3106 principles governing premarital agreements require written waivers or formal execution | Court held the oral agreement was enforceable under general contract principles: parties manifested assent, full disclosure occurred, and intent to be bound was shown; distinction between postnuptial and marital settlement irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Luber v. Luber, 614 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 1992) (oral marital settlement can be enforced where parties manifested assent even if they planned to reduce it to writing)
- Stoner v. Stoner, 819 A.2d 529 (Pa. 2003) (traditional contract rules apply to marital agreements)
- Simeone v. Simeone, 581 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1990) (prenuptial/postnuptial agreements are contracts evaluated under general contract principles)
- Lugg v. Lugg, 64 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishing premarital statutory regime from postnuptial agreements and confirming lack of § 3106 applicability to postmarital agreements)