Opinion ID: 1058021
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Marital Dissolution Agreement as a Contract

Text: We have previously held that a marital dissolution agreement is a contract and as such generally is subject to the rules governing construction of contracts. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d at 896; see also Matthews v. Matthews, 24 Tenn.App. 580, 148 S.W.2d 3, 11 (1940) (holding that the separation agreement was a valid and enforceable contract absent a showing of fraud or coercion). This is consistent with the Court's treatment of other agreements made respective to marriage, in which we seek to determine the rights of each spouse in the marital property and to resolve other issues, such as spousal support. These types of agreements consistently have been found to be valid and enforceable contracts between the parties. See, e.g., Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Tenn.2004) (post-nuptial agreements); Kahn v. Kahn, 756 S.W.2d 685, 694-95 (Tenn.1988) (prenuptial agreements); Hoyt v. Hoyt, 213 Tenn. 117, 372 S.W.2d 300, 303-04 (1963) (reconciliation agreements). Additionally, settlement agreements made during or in contemplation of litigation are enforceable as contracts. See, e.g., Envtl. Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp., 27 S.W.3d 530, 539 (Tenn.Ct. App.2000) (stating that [a] compromise and settlement agreement is merely a contract between the parties to litigation and, as such, issues of enforceability of a settlement agreement are governed by contract law); Harbour v. Brown for Ulrich, 732 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tenn.1987) (stating that a settlement agreement may be a binding contract, subject to being enforced as other contracts); Ledbetter v. Ledbetter, 163 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tenn.2005) (stating that a mediated agreement is essentially contractual in nature). Just as prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements are contracts, and as written marital dissolution agreements reached in mediation are contracts, so too are written and signed marital dissolution agreements reached independently by the parties. A marital dissolution agreement may be enforceable as a contract even if one of the parties withdraws consent prior to the entry of judgment by the trial court, so long as the agreement is otherwise a validly enforceable contract. [2] In Matthews, the wife filed a complaint for divorce, alleging that the two separation agreements that she entered into with her husband were fraudulent and void. 148 S.W.2d at 5-6. Despite this clear repudiation by the wife, the Court of Appeals held that the separation agreements were valid and enforceable absent a clear showing of fraud or coercion. Id. at 13. Recently, this Court addressed the issue of whether a marital dissolution agreement, reached though mediation but not reduced to a signed writing, was enforceable after one of the parties withdrew consent. Ledbetter, 163 S.W.3d at 682. We affirmed the trial court's ruling that the agreement was unenforceable, holding: [W]e conclude that because Mr. Ledbetter repudiated the terms of the agreement prior to its presentation to the court, the trial court lacked authority to enter a judgment on the agreement. Further, because the agreement had not been reduced to writing and signed by the parties, it is not an enforceable contract. Id. at 683. The Court in Ledbetter determined that the agreement was not enforceable as a contract because it had not been reduced to writing and, based on evidentiary provisions in Supreme Court Rule 31 (regarding mediation) [3] and Rule 408 of the Rules of Evidence, [4] the agreement should not be enforced as an oral contract. Id. at 685-86. Unlike the agreement at issue in Ledbetter , the agreement at issue here was reduced to writing and signed by both parties, as witnessed by a notary public. Therefore the agreement is a contract, the enforceability of which is governed by contract law.