(a) The court should rule in favor of Beverly’s request for payment of arrearages.

When two parties make a contract in contemplation of divorce, which settles the division of property or other support, those are normally enforceable, even without consideration, as long as they are not unconscionable. The court which ultimately settles the divorce may normally alter spousal support payments and may equitably divide marital property, if there is not an agreement already entered into by the parties. The parties will be bound to such an agreement, and normally any alteration of such an agreement would need to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.The original agreement and subsequent agreement must be signed under the statue of fraud because it relates to marriage and would last longer than a year. The court, however, may choose to retain jurisdiction over the matter of the property settlement and spousal support if it incorporates the agreement into the final ruling and enteres language which retains jurisdiction.

Here, the facts note that a month after Beverly filed suit for divorce and it was served on dean, the parties privately negotiated and signed a property settlement and support agreement. The agreement satisfied the writing and signing requirement. Moreover, there are no facts to show that it was unconscionable, as both parties were able to negotiate, and Beverly was given a reasonable sum of spousal support of $1500 per month. Therefore, the agreement was properly enforceable.

The issue here is that the parties later orally agreed to modify the agreement due to Dean’s touch economic times. This would not be a valid modification of the agreement. First, the agreement was made orally, when it needed to be made in writing. Without a writing, there is no enforceable change or modification of the contract between Dean and Beverly. Moreover, the court when it approved of the agreement expressly ratified, affirmed, and incorporated it into the final decree along with the instruction that “no future modifications to said agreement shall be made without a decree of this court.” Here, the facts note that Beverly wanted to go to the court and change the agreement, but Dean said there was no sense in paying lawyers to go to court. In fact, for the modification to be binding on both parties, they were required to go to the ocurt, since the court incorporated the agreement into the final decree and retained jurisdiction over the matter.

When a party does not pay spousal or child support according to a final decree, a court can force them to pay arrearages, or backpay for hte missed payemnts. Here, since the property and spousal agreement was not properly modified in writing or by court order, Dean is still liable to pay Beverly the original $1500 per month in spousal support, and must pay the differnece.

Therefore, the court should rule in favor of Beverly’s request for payment of the arrearages.

(b) The court should rule in favor of Beverly’s reqeust for incrased spousal support.

As noted above, normally, when two parties enter a private proeprty divison and spousal support agreement, then the agreement may not be altered by the court. However, when a court expressly ratifies, affirms, and incorporates such an agreement into the final decree, the court may retain jurisdiction over the matter. When a party request a change in spousal support, the court will consider whenther there has been sigifnicant change in circumstances and whether a party is under an economic hardship. The court will also look at the economic position of the spouse paying support.

Here, the facts note that although Beverly and Dean entered into a privately negotiated Property Settelment and support Agreement, which would normally exclude the court from having the ability to alter it, the court incorporated the agreement into its final decree. By doing this, the Circuit Court of Hampton retained jurisdiction over the matter. Here, the facts also note that Beverly supported her request for increased spousal support with evidence of significant evidence of hardship and changed circumstances. This would lead the court to likely increase her requst for support, since it retained jurisdiction over the matter and Beverly has shown her need for increased support. The court may also look to Dean’s economic situaiton. The facts note that in 2022 and 2023 Dean encountered tough economic times, but so long as he is able to now able to provide the increased support, the court will likely make him.

Therefore, the court should grant Beverly’s request for increased spousal support

(c) The court should grant Beverly’s request for an increase in child support.

Unlike agreements for spousal support and property settlements, the court will retain jurisdiction over Child support matters. The court will normally provide support of the child, in the ammount that is in the best interest of the child. The partent who has custody of the child will not pay support, and the person not in custody will pay the support. An increase in child support may be granted by a showing of changed circumstances that call for the increased support.

Here, the facts note that Dean was originally ordered to pay $1,7000 a month, which appears proper considering Beverly was awareded Custody of Willie their son. Moreover, the facts note that Beverly asked to increase the support by $300 (to $2000) because Willie needed braces and there was a substantial increase in Willie’s private school education costs. It would be in the interest of Willie to have good dental health and to continue to go to his school. The $300 increase is reasonable in light of the expenses that Willie requires.

Therefore, the court should grant Beverly’s request for an increase in child support.

(d) The court should deny Beverly’s request to hold Dean in contempt.

When a judge orders someone in contempt of court, they are requiring the party to be incarcerated until they do what the court has ordered the to do. Normally, a court does have the power and discretion to hold a party in contempt of court for not following a court order, however, this remedy is normally a last resort remedy. The court will normally resort to other, less drastic measures, such as holdign a hearing and ordering he party to do what they have been asked to do.

Here, the facts note that although Dean did fail to pay the entire agreed upon amoung in spousal support, he did pay $500. Moreover, this was done after Beverly agreed to the reduce payments. Although the agreement was not binding, it shows that Dean was not completely negating the court’s order (via the final decree, and agreement between the party.The court would likely take a less drastic measure, and again order Dean to pay the arrearages owed.

Therefore, the court should deny Beverly’s reqeust to hold Dean in Contempt

(a) The court should grant Beverly’s request for payment of arrearages.

In a divorce action, the court has the power to order spousal support payments, but the parties to the divorce may also enter into a valid and binding settlement agreement. Such agreement may set terms for division of marital property, spousal support, child support, custody and visitation. The court will uphold such valid contracts to the extent they concern marital property and spousal support, although the court may modify terms pertaining to child support, custody and visitation. When the court has entered its final divorce decree, it may make the marital agreement part of the court order, such that it may only be modified by the court and is enforceable as a court order.

Beverly and Dean entered a valid settlement agreement pursuant to their divorce. This agreeement specified that Dean would pay Beverly $1,500 per month in spousal support. The court approved this agreement and incorporated it into the final divorce decree, such that the agreement becomes a court order to Dean to pay $1,500 per month of spousal support. As with other court orders, and as held expressly by the court in this case, the spousal support order may not be modified except by decree of the court.

Because Beverly’s oral agreement to accept $500 in lieu of the $1,500 ordered by the court was not made through a court order, her agreement did not change Dean’s spousal support obligation. Dean could have potentially sought court approval to modify the spousal support award due to his change in circumstances, as discussed further below. However, Dean did not do so, and therefore the oral agreement was not sufficient to modify his support obligation. Dean owed $1,500 per month under the court order, and the Court should award Beverly arrearages for the unpaid amount.

(b) The court should deny Beverly’s motion to increase spousal support unless she can demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

A court may modify a spousal support payment when there is a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstances is a significant change in facts relied upon by the court in setting the support amount, or when a circumstance anticipated by the parties does not come to pass. Although both parties may demonstrate change in circumstances, the factors favor Dean and the court should therefore deny Beverly’s motion to increase spousal support.

Beverly supports her motion with “significant evidence of hardship and changed circumstances.” However, Dean also can demonstrate that in 2022 and 2023 his business encountered “tough economic times.” Without further facts, this alone favors neither party. The court will have to determine whether Beverly’s change in circumstances was unanticipated and whether they warrant an increase in support payments. Since the parties agreed to the current support amount and since Dean is also likely able to show that his business is encountering unanticipated problems that constitute a material change in circumstances, the court should most likely deny Beverly’s motion.

(c) The court should approve Beverly’s motion for increased child support.

Although parties to a divorce may enter into a settlement agreement concerning child support, visitation and custody, this agreement is not binding on the court. The court retains the power to modify child support, visitation and custody agreements when to do so is in the best interest of the child. Additionally, for all child support orders, the court retains the power to modify said orders for a material change in circumstances, under the same standard as set out for spousal support orders above in section (b).

Beverly agreed to a child support award of $1,700, which the court ratified, at the time of the divorce “several years ago.” As with the other terms of the agreement, the court made this part of the divorce decree. However, the court retains the right to modify this award in the best interest of the child and for material change in circumstances.

Beverly supports her motion with evidence of changed circumstances, including Willie’s need for braces and an increase in the cost of his school tuition. The court is likely to find that this meets the standard. Willie has reached an age where he needs increased dental care, requiring a change in his support award. Additionally, it is likely in Willie’s best interest to continue in the school at which he is accustomed and comfortable even though the tuition has increased. Therefore, the court should approve the child support increase. As with all modifications to support awards, Dean will be required to pay prospectively and there will be no retroactive adjusment.

(d) The court should not hold Dean in contempt for failure because his failure to pay was not willful.

When a party under court order to pay spousal or child support fails to pay, the court has several powers, including civil and criminal contempt powers and the ability to enter a garnishment order. The court may consider whether the party’s failure to pay was willful. Here, although Dean violated the court order, he reached oral agreement with Beverly to accept a lower amount and did so pay the agreed-upon amount. Dean and Beverly’s agreement was invalid and in violation of the court order, as discussed in section (a). However, because Dean and Beverly had actual, even if invalid, agreement, the court likely will not consider Dean’s failure to pay as “willful” and therefore is not likely to find him in contempt of court on these facts.