Painter v. Painter
823 So.2d 268, 2002 WL 1801747 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract is considered abandoned by mutual consent when the subsequent acts of one party are inconsistent with the existence of the contract and the other party acquiesces in those acts.
Facts:
- In March 1996, Michael J. Painter and Gladys C. Painter married.
- In early 1999, the parties began settlement negotiations for their pending divorce.
- On February 10, 1999, the Painters signed a settlement agreement drafted by Mrs. Painter, which required Mr. Painter to pay her $260,000 on March 1, 1999.
- Mr. Painter failed to make the required payment on March 1, 1999.
- On April 1, 1999, Mrs. Painter's attorney sent a letter to Mr. Painter's counsel stating that the agreement was 'void' due to Mr. Painter's non-performance and that Mrs. Painter had been under duress.
- Following this letter, the parties engaged in further negotiations, with Mrs. Painter's attorney proposing a new settlement of $395,000 plus half the proceeds from the marital home.
- The parties attended mediation in May 1999 and again in December 1999, but failed to reach a new agreement.
- On December 9, 1999, Mrs. Painter's attorney stated for the first time that if her current offer was rejected, she would seek to enforce the original February 10 agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 14, 1999, Mrs. Painter filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the circuit court (trial court), which did not mention the settlement agreement.
- Mrs. Painter amended her petition in September 1999, again making no mention of the agreement.
- After subsequent negotiations failed, Mrs. Painter filed a motion in the circuit court to enforce the February 10, 1999, settlement agreement.
- The circuit court granted Mrs. Painter's motion, found the agreement valid, and entered a final judgment of dissolution that incorporated the agreement.
- The circuit court subsequently entered orders resolving issues of mortgages, alimony, and attorney's fees based on the enforceability of the agreement.
- Mr. Painter (Appellant) appealed the final judgment and the subsequent orders to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, arguing the trial court erred in enforcing the agreement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the parties abandon their marital settlement agreement through conduct inconsistent with its existence, thereby rendering it unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Northcutt, J.
Yes, the parties abandoned their marital settlement agreement because their conduct following its creation was inconsistent with its existence, and they mutually acquiesced in this abandonment. Abandonment is a form of rescission by mutual consent, which can be proven by showing that one party's actions are inconsistent with the contract's existence and the other party agrees to or accepts those actions. Here, Mr. Painter's failure to pay was an act inconsistent with the agreement. Mrs. Painter's subsequent letter, through her attorney, declaring the agreement 'void' constituted her acquiescence to his non-performance and was itself an act inconsistent with the contract. The parties' further actions, including making numerous new offers and counteroffers and attending mediation sessions, were consistent with the abandonment of the original agreement, not its continued validity. Therefore, the trial court erred in enforcing the abandoned agreement.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the doctrine of abandonment of contract in the context of marital settlement agreements. It establishes that subsequent conduct, such as declaring an agreement 'void' and engaging in new negotiations, can effectively nullify a prior written agreement, even if one party later attempts to revive it. The decision emphasizes that a party cannot unilaterally resurrect a mutually abandoned contract when later negotiations fail. This precedent provides a clear framework for lower courts to analyze the parties' entire course of conduct post-agreement to determine if it remains enforceable, impacting how attorneys advise clients during protracted settlement negotiations.
