Kay v. Kay
460 Pa. 680, 334 A.2d 585, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 717 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania's Uniform Written Obligations Act, a written separation agreement that includes a statement of intent to be legally bound is enforceable even in the absence of consideration. Such agreements are not void as against public policy unless they are structured to be conducive to divorce.
Facts:
- On September 11, 1967, a husband (appellant) and wife (appellee) entered into a separation agreement shortly before commencing divorce proceedings.
- The agreement obligated the appellant to pay the appellee $20.00 per week.
- These payments were to cease only upon the appellee's remarriage.
- The agreement contained a clause stating the appellant's intent to be legally bound by its terms.
- The agreement was signed and sealed by both parties in the presence of a scrivener.
- The scrivener read the agreement aloud to both parties before they executed it.
- The appellant admitted he did not personally read the contract before signing it.
- A dispute later arose over whether the appellant had fulfilled his payment obligations under the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 1, 1973, the appellee (wife) filed a complaint in equity in a trial court seeking specific performance of the separation agreement.
- The trial court judge (chancellor) enforced the agreement and found that the appellant (husband) owed the appellee a total of $5,660.
- The appellant filed exceptions to the chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The trial court denied the appellant's exceptions.
- The appellant appealed the trial court's final decree to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a written and sealed separation agreement, which includes a statement of intent to be legally bound, enforceable in equity despite claims of no consideration, violation of public policy, and laches?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, Chief Justice
Yes, a written separation agreement containing a statement of intent to be legally bound is enforceable in equity. The appellant's defenses of lack of consideration, public policy violation, and laches are without merit. First, under the Uniform Written Obligations Act, the agreement's express statement that the appellant intends to be legally bound makes it enforceable even without consideration. Second, the agreement is not void as against public policy because it is not conducive to divorce; its obligations are not conditioned on a divorce decree and it explicitly allows the appellant to contest any divorce action. Third, the doctrine of laches does not bar relief because the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the appellee's delay in filing suit, such as the unavailability of witnesses or loss of records. Finally, the appellant's claim of fraud fails because his failure to read the agreement, despite having the opportunity and hearing it read aloud, constitutes carelessness or unilateral mistake, not fraud.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the statutory power of the Uniform Written Obligations Act in Pennsylvania, allowing parties to create binding contracts through a clear written statement of intent, thereby circumventing traditional consideration requirements. It also clarifies the standard for evaluating the validity of postnuptial separation agreements, confirming they are permissible so long as they do not operate as an incentive for divorce. The decision provides a practical application of the laches doctrine, stressing that mere delay in bringing a claim is insufficient for this equitable defense; a defendant must prove concrete prejudice caused by the delay.
