## Facts

- Brian P. Duffy (husband) and Joan Walsh Duffy (wife) married in 1977 and adopted a daughter in 1995.
- Around 1998, Brian sought separation; the parties cooperated to sell their home, divide proceeds, pay debts, and distribute property.
- The parties consulted a divorce mediator and also negotiated directly through meetings and email to reduce legal time and expense.
- Joan memorialized the agreed terms in a letter addressed to her attorney; both parties read and signed the letter on May 12, 2001.
- The letter addressed major divorce terms, including finances, child support, and legal and physical custody.
- Joan’s counsel prepared a more formal marital settlement agreement incorporating the letter’s terms and sent it to Brian on May 23, 2001; Brian never signed the draft.
- From May 2001 until November 2002, the parties followed the letter’s terms, including Brian’s payment of $5,000 per month in child support.
- In November 2002, Brian unilaterally reduced child support to $2,000 per month.
- Joan moved to enforce the letter as a separation agreement; Brian argued the letter was not binding and was incomplete because it lacked a clause reducing support if he lost his job.
- The trial court found the signed letter complete, unambiguous, and intended to bind the parties, enforced it in the divorce judgment, and ordered an arrears accounting, payment of arrears, and continued support per the letter.

## Issues

1. Whether a signed letter containing divorce settlement terms constituted an enforceable separation agreement when the parties expected a later formal written agreement.
2. Whether the existence of an unsigned, more formal draft agreement prevented enforcement of the signed letter.
3. Whether the absence of an express contingency or self-modification clause for child support rendered the child-support provision unenforceable as a contractual term incorporated into the divorce judgment.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held the signed letter was an enforceable separation agreement because it was complete and unambiguous and the parties manifested intent to be bound.
- The court held that contemplating a later formal agreement did not defeat enforceability of the letter where material terms were agreed and the parties treated the letter as binding.
- The court upheld enforcement of the child-support obligation stated in the letter, including the trial court’s orders addressing arrears and ongoing payments.

## Legal Principles

- A separation agreement may be enforced as a contract when a signed writing is complete and unambiguous and the parties show intent to be bound.
- An agreement can be binding even if the parties anticipate memorializing it later in a more formal document, so long as they have agreed on material terms and intend present obligation.
- The parties’ course of performance consistent with the writing is strong evidence of intent to be bound and supports enforcement.
- A child-support term set by agreement may be enforced when incorporated into a divorce judgment; the absence of an express conditional reduction clause does not, by itself, defeat contract formation.

## Conclusion

A signed letter resolving material divorce issues functioned as an enforceable separation agreement despite an anticipated but unsigned formal draft, and the trial court properly enforced the letter’s child-support terms and related arrears orders in the divorce judgment.


Duffy v. Duffy, 881 A.2d 630 (D.C. 2005)