Dominick v. Dominick, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 85 (1984)
The Massachusetts Appeals Court was confronted for the first time with the issue of whether an oral separation agreement read into the court record, with the express intention of the parties that the agreement is to be reduced in writing and signed, is binding, absent a formal signed agreement; and, whether if such oral agreement is binding, a party may recant it before the entry of a judgment of divorce, incorporating the terms of that agreement. The parties suspended a trial on their complaints for divorce to conduct settlement negotiations. After the parties had agreed to a settlement, counsel read into the court record a detailed recitation of their agreement, where the parties each testified that they understood the agreement, there was full disclosure of each other's financial information and entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily. The wife of Atwood & Cherny's client subsequently repudiated the agreement and requested a new trial. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the wife's request and sustained Atwood & Cherny's contention that a court has the ability to enforce the terms of an oral settlement agreement.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court was confronted for the first time with the issue of whether an oral separation agreement read into the court record, with the express intention of the parties that the agreement is to be reduced in writing and signed, is binding, absent a formal signed agreement; and, whether if such oral agreement is binding, a party may recant it before the entry of a judgment of divorce, incorporating the terms of that agreement. The parties suspended a trial on their complaints for divorce to conduct settlement negotiations. After the parties had agreed to a settlement, counsel read into the court record a detailed recitation of their agreement, where the parties each testified that they understood the agreement, there was full disclosure of each other's financial information and entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily. The wife of Atwood & Cherny's client subsequently repudiated the agreement and requested a new trial. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the wife's request and sustained Atwood & Cherny's contention that a court has the ability to enforce the terms of an oral settlement agreement.