Case Name: Joy W. FOSTER v. Charles K. FOSTER, Jr.
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1992-06-26
Citations: 609 A.2d 1171
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joy W. FOSTER v. Charles K. FOSTER, Jr.
Judges: Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 609
Pages: 1171–1174

Head Matter:
Joy W. FOSTER v. Charles K. FOSTER, Jr.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued March 3, 1992.
Decided June 26, 1992.
Michael L. Ross (orally), Ellsworth, Martha Harris, Paine, Lynch & Harris, Bangor, for plaintiff.
James C. Hunt, Elizabeth A. Williams (orally), Robinson, Kriger, McCallum & Greene, Portland, Lewis V. Vafiades, Va-fiades, Brountas & Kominsky, Bangor, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

Opinion:
WATHEN, Chief Justice.
On plaintiff Joy Foster's appeal we consider the application of the parties' premarital agreement to their divorce proceedings. In its divorce order, the Superior Court (Hancock County, Browne, A.R.J.) applied the agreement and awarded plaintiff $50,-000 in lieu of her marital property rights. We conclude that the agreement addresses the disposition of the marital estate only in the event of defendant Charles Foster's death, and was improperly applied by the Superior Court. We vacate the judgment.
The parties were married in 1977 and have two minor children. Both parties had been previously married, and defendant had adult children by his first marriage. About a month before the marriage, plaintiff signed an agreement that recited her desire to release dower and all other rights "which, by reason of the marriage, she may acquire in the property or estate of" defendant. The agreement provided for payment to plaintiff of $50,000 in the event of defendant's death.
Although the precise language of the agreement providing for the $50,000 payment specifically conditions that payment on plaintiff surviving Foster "as his lawful widow," defendant argues that the agreement read in its entirety releases plaintiffs rights in his property in the event of divorce. Specifically, he relies on the introductory paragraphs of the agreement reading as follows:
WHEREAS, Foster desires to make a reasonable and sufficient provision for [plaintiff] in release of and in full satisfaction of all rights which, after the solemnization of their marriage, she might or could have by reason of the marriage in the property Foster now has or may hereinafter acquire or in his estate upon his death, and
WHEREAS, [plaintiff] desires to accept this provision in lieu of all rights which she would otherwise acquire by reason of the marriage in the property or estate of Foster_
Further, he contends that the payment portion of the agreement contains language that addresses both defendant's death and other circumstances:
[Plaintiff] shall accept the payment provided in paragraph 2 [$50,000] in release and full satisfaction of all rights which, by reason of the marriage, she may acquire in the property or estate of Foster, and in consideration thereof she does hereby waive and relinquish all rights which, as widow of Foster, she would otherwise acquire....
It is a well established principle that a contract is to be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties as reflected in the written instrument, construed in respect to the subject matter, motive and purpose of making the agreement, and the object to be accomplished. See Baybutt Constr. Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 914, 919 (Me.1983). Applying this principle, we hold that the agreement provides only for certain inter vivos transfers of property and inheritance rights. All of the numbered paragraphs deal with plaintiff's rights as widow of defendant, and use terms such as dower, distributive share, and descent. Most importantly, the paragraph establishing plaintiff's entitlement to the $50,000 expressly provides for payment only if plaintiff survives defendant, "[s]uch sum [to] be paid to [plaintiff] as soon after the death of [defendant] as may be practicable, but in no event later than one year after his death." The broad language of the introductory clauses to the agreement does not expand the actual settlement provisions of the agreement. See Estate of Berzinis, 505 A.2d 86 (Me.1986) (antenuptial agreement did not refer to death but used terms suggestive of divorce, so did not apply to wife's inheritance rights); Parkhurst v. Gibson, 573 A.2d 454 (N.H.1990) (rejecting attempt to construe the general language in the "Whereas" clause to extend the application of a premarital agreement to divorce where the agreement did not include the words "divorce," "alimony" or "property settlement").
Plaintiff additionally challenges the Superior Court's awards of child support and attorney's fees; we find no abuse of the court's discretion in either of these awards. Defendant's contention on cross-appeal that the Superior Court erred in dismissing his counterclaim alleging cruel and abusive treatment is also without merit.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated. Remanded to the Superior Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERTS and COLLINS, JJ., concurring.