Question

What do you guys think?

Patricia and Billy Welkener sought a divorce. The two parties, having reached an agreement

for the division of their property, appeared in court to recite into the record their agreement.

In court Patricia agreed, among other things, to receive $1,098.84 per month from Billy’s

retirement account.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge decreed the settlement to be final. Subsequently,

Patricia asked the court to enter judgment that she receive 32.7 percent of Billy’s retirement

account, which is the percentage version of the amount she was previously awarded.

Patricia argued that stating the award in terms of a percentage, rather that a specific

amount, was important as this would allow her to share in any future increases in Billy’s

monthly retirement benefit.

Patricia further argued that when the agreement was announced in open court, she

described the agreement in terms of dollars and cents as a means of describing the

percentage she would be entitled to receive. She claimed that listing the amount in terms of

a sum, as opposed to a percentage, was an accident and therefore the terms to which she

agreed were not accurately reflected in the court’s final decision

.

1. What is at issue here?

2. Do you think the agreement reached in court between the Welkeners accurately

reflects what the parties intended?

3. Under which rule of law might Patricia be entitled to a change in terms? Why?

Answer 1

1. The primary issue in the given case is that initially Patricia was fine with the remuneration being paid as an alimony. But during one of the court motions, she started claiming that she deserves 32.7% of Billy’s retirement account. The percentage factor will account for Patricia having stakes in any raise in Billy’s future assets.

2. As per Patricia, she had been misquoted and she desired the agreement in terms of percentage and not in dollars and cents. Hence the agreement reached in court between the 2 parties is not as per what was intended by Patricia.

3. Patricia can claim for a new trial on the grounds of unilateral mistake. Unilateral mistake happens when one of the involved parties make a mistake in quoting the terms and conditions of the claim or contract. Patricia had made a mistake when she quoted the agreement in terms of dollars and cents initially while she desired the alimony in terms of percentage. Hence, she can claim it to be a unilateral mistake under the rule of law.