Help to Interpret Divorce Language

[koshidog]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MD

My divorce has this language in it. Could someone please explain what exactly this means? Thank you in advance for any help.

Should any provision of this Agreement be found, held, or deemed to be unenforceable, voidable or void, as contrary to law or public policy under the laws of Maryland or any other State of the United States, the parties intend that the remaining provisions of this Agreement, at the option of the Husband, shall nevertheless continue in full force and be beinding upon the parties, their heirs, personal representatives, executors, and assigns.

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MD

My divorce has this language in it. Could someone please explain what exactly this means? Thank you in advance for any help.

Should any provision of this Agreement be found, held, or deemed to be unenforceable, voidable or void, as contrary to law or public policy under the laws of Maryland or any other State of the United States, the parties intend that the remaining provisions of this Agreement, at the option of the Husband, shall nevertheless continue in full force and be beinding upon the parties, their heirs, personal representatives, executors, and assigns.

That's a standard clause and appears in almost every contractual agreement.

Basically, contracts and divorce decrees consist of a number of different clauses. Let's say that you have 20 clauses in your agreement and one of them says that you will agree to mow your ex's lawn for 5 years. But your state then passes a law stating that it's illegal for someone without a lawn-mowing license to mow lawns. That means that this particular clause becomes invalid and unenforceable. The above clause says that the lawn mowing clause could be wiped out without affecting the rest of the agreement (property division, child support, alimony, etc).

It's really a necessary part of any contract, although there are still issues. What if the clause that is negated by the courts is an integral part of the agreement and negating that clause would change the entire structure of the agreement? This happens only very rarely, though.

 

[Zigner]

That's a standard clause and appears in almost every contractual agreement.

Basically, contracts and divorce decrees consist of a number of different clauses. Let's say that you have 20 clauses in your agreement and one of them says that you will agree to mow your ex's lawn for 5 years. But your state then passes a law stating that it's illegal for someone without a lawn-mowing license to mow lawns. That means that this particular clause becomes invalid and unenforceable. The above clause says that the lawn mowing clause could be wiped out without affecting the rest of the agreement (property division, child support, alimony, etc).

It's really a necessary part of any contract, although there are still issues. What if the clause that is negated by the courts is an integral part of the agreement and negating that clause would change the entire structure of the agreement? This happens only very rarely, though.

I am curious about the inclusion of "...at the option of the Husband..."

 

[koshidog]

My Question Too!

Thank you for your responses.

That was my question too - what exactly does that mean "at the option of the husband"? What rights does this paragraph give to the husband?

 

[mistoffolees]

I am curious about the inclusion of "...at the option of the Husband..."

Sorry, I didn't read it that carefully. That statement should not be there. This type of clause should be automatic.

If the decree is not yet final, have the 'at the option of the husband' part stricken. If it's already final, just hope the clause never gets invoked because you could end up with a legal battle (fortunately, that particular clause would be unlikely to be used in a divorce, so odds are pretty low that it will ever be an issue).

 

[koshidog]

Do I Have A Problem?

My divorce was final in 2004. So removing the language from the divorce is not an option anymore, I guess. I don't know why it was included in the divorce. Can this be a problem?

Thank you again for any responses.

 

[Zigner]

My divorce was final in 2004. So removing the language from the divorce is not an option anymore, I guess. I don't know why it was included in the divorce. Can this be a problem?

Thank you again for any responses.

Ok, are you Husband (ex) or Wife (ex)?

And, why does it matter? Has something NOT happened that was supposed to happen per your divorce decree?

 

[Ohiogal]

Should any provision of this Agreement be found, held, or deemed to be unenforceable, voidable or void, as contrary to law or public policy under the laws of Maryland or any other State of the United States, the parties intend that the remaining provisions of this Agreement, at the option of the Husband, shall nevertheless continue in full force and be beinding upon the parties, their heirs, personal representatives, executors, and assigns

It means that if any one provision is found to be unenforceable, Hubby gets to determine if the rest of the decree remains in full force. Bad idea. So say custody states that mom shall always be legal custodian of the child, that is unenforceable. So Hubby could decide to toss the whole thing.

 

[Zigner]

It means that if any one provision is found to be unenforceable, Hubby gets to determine if the rest of the decree remains in full force. Bad idea. So say custody states that mom shall always be legal custodian of the child, that is unenforceable. So Hubby could decide to toss the whole thing.

Thanks OG - that's how I read it from a layman's point of view...just didn't know if there was a "hidden meaning" hiding in there...

 

[mistoffolees]

My divorce was final in 2004. So removing the language from the divorce is not an option anymore, I guess. I don't know why it was included in the divorce. Can this be a problem?

Is there any reason that it's an issue now? If not and your checking just for satisfaction, then it's probably a case of 'let sleeping dogs lie'.

 

[koshidog]

Why is it in There?

Thank you again for all responses, but

If this language is bad, then why would it be in there? Could it may have been a typo and instead of saying "husband", it should say "husband and wife"?

 

[Zigner]

Thank you again for all responses, but

If this language is bad, then why would it be in there? Could it may have been a typo and instead of saying "husband", it should say "husband and wife"?

Answer two questions before we proceed:

Are you the Husband or the Wife?

What makes this an issue now?

 

[koshidog]

My plan was to go back to court and ask for a modification for educational expenses. I wanted to re-read my divorce to be prepared. I don't have an attorney and I wanted to do this pro se. Although this language has always been in the divorce, this was the first time I took notice to it.

My ex has an atty, do you think the atty could somehow use this language for their advantage?

Thank you again for responding.

 

[mistoffolees]

Thank you again for all responses, but

If this language is bad, then why would it be in there? Could it may have been a typo and instead of saying "husband", it should say "husband and wife"?

It is more likely that your ex pulled a fast one on you and your attorney didn't catch it. I would argue that it shouldn't say 'husband and wife', either. If a clause is unenforceable, you generally don't want the entire agreement to be voided.

 

[Zigner]

My plan was to go back to court and ask for a modification for educational expenses. I wanted to re-read my divorce to be prepared. I don't have an attorney and I wanted to do this pro se. Although this language has always been in the divorce, this was the first time I took notice to it.

My ex has an atty, do you think the atty could somehow use this language for their advantage?

Thank you again for responding.

Don't count on getting it. Educational expenses should have been included. On the plus side, the court will retain jurisdiction of child support matters no matter what, so that clause should hurt you unless you had something really non-standard in there to begin with.