Contract - termination of?

[tmsinWA]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? WA

If you ammend one portion of a contract/agreement, does that void the remainder of the agreement? That is: one section of the contract is ammended by law. All parties abide by the remainder of the original contract (portions not ammended). Suddenly one party is stating that the contract/agreement is null and void as of the time that the contract was ammended?

Any advice is appreciated!

Thanx

 

[matti422]

It depends...

The contract needs to be examined to determine if it is severable and what the effects of the amendment were. No one will give you a straight answer bases on the little information you have provided.

 

[tmsinWA]

Okay then...lets try this again.

In 1997 I divorced. In the original divorce decree we agreed upon various items with respect to child-support, tax exemptions and property. After the divorce was final, we mutually agreed to ammend the decree with respect to the child-support awarded, the tax exemptions and the property/debts. This agreement was both signed and dated by both of us. (we did not incorporate this into our decree as we had both made the agreement willingly and didn't feel we needed to waste any more of the courts time). A few months afterward, my ex stopped paying child-support. I was forced to go back to court and modify the support order and garnish wages (the judge threw the book at him with regards to the support amount as he wasn't cooperating with the court system - I was just asking for what we agreed too). Anyway, from 1997 through 2002 we have both been abiding by the agreement with respect to the exemption. In 2003, my ex decided that the agreement was null and void. His reasoning is that because I took him back to court to ammend the support award, that made that contract invalid and he didn't need to follow our agreement. Is this valid?

I have an appointment on wednesday with an attorney, I would just like to sleep between now and then!

Thanks again!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Okay then...lets try this again.

In 1997 I divorced. In the original divorce decree we agreed upon various items with respect to child-support, tax exemptions and property. After the divorce was final, we mutually agreed to ammend the decree with respect to the child-support awarded, the tax exemptions and the property/debts. This agreement was both signed and dated by both of us. (we did not incorporate this into our decree as we had both made the agreement willingly and didn't feel we needed to waste any more of the courts time).

And because the both of you thought you were more important than the court you decided to thumb your noses at the judge and the court that issued the original order.

Guess what? Your agreement is worthless.

A few months afterward, my ex stopped paying child-support. I was forced to go back to court and modify the support order and garnish wages (the judge threw the book at him with regards to the support amount as he wasn't cooperating with the court system - I was just asking for what we agreed too). Anyway, from 1997 through 2002 we have both been abiding by the agreement with respect to the exemption. In 2003, my ex decided that the agreement was null and void. His reasoning is that because I took him back to court to ammend the support award, that made that contract invalid and he didn't need to follow our agreement. Is this valid?

The ORIGINAL court order is the ONLY valid agreement you have.

I have an appointment on wednesday with an attorney, I would just like to sleep between now and then!

Thanks again!

then during this meeting ask your attorney to take the agreement and TRY to get it incorporated into your original divorce decree.

 

[matti422]

And, please, next time, post under Family Law, not Consumer Contracts. Child Support is not a commercial good or service. You'll get much more relevant advice there.

 

[tmsinWA]

We were never thumbing our noses at anybody. Is it so wrong for two people to come together and agree on an issue without bringing everything through the court system? Perhaps the reason that the court system is so bogged down is from people feeling that they MUST bring everything in front of a judge without trying to negotiate a settlement maturely between the two parties. And the fact that attorneys can cost so much money, why indeed should you waste your money if you can form a “contract” between two people with regards to particular issues? This is in no way a case of one person trying to get the better of the other person. We were both mutually agreeing to the amendment with absolutely no duress or coercion. Ultimately when you agree to perform an act, you should be held responsible for completing that act; whether you are painting someone’s house, selling your car, or divorcing a spouse. If after a certain amount of time, you mutually agree to change an agreement, where does it say you MUST take it back to court?

And why the hostility? Yes, the underlying facts of the case are regarding a Family Law issue however the question was regarding a “contract” and the termination of said contract. The issue is not the divorce but the legality of the contract made after the divorce.

 

[matti422]

It's not hostility, it's arecommendation for your own benefit. There is a large difference between commercial law and family law. A "contract" is not always a "contract", and I'd hate to see you take bad advice. Plus, most of the experts in your type of "contract" are lurking in the Family Law section. The business experienced folks mostly ignore this.