## Facts

- Dorothy Kay (wife) and James M. Kay (husband) executed a separation agreement on September 11, 1967, shortly before divorce proceedings.
- The husband promised to pay the wife $20 per week; payments would cease only upon the wife’s remarriage.
- The agreement stated the husband agreed to be “legally bound,” and it was executed in the presence of the parties and the scrivener.
- The husband later stopped paying; the wife filed an equity action on February 1, 1973, seeking specific performance for future payments and arrears.
- After testimony, the chancellor enforced the agreement, found the husband had paid $1,080 total, and determined arrears of $5,660 as of final adjudication.
- The husband’s exceptions were denied, and he appealed from the final equity decree.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancellor erred in rejecting the husband’s testimony that he satisfied his obligation through unreceipted cash payments and in rejecting his claim that the agreement was procured by fraud.
2. Whether the agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration, or enforceable under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act due to an express statement of intent to be legally bound.
3. Whether the agreement was void as against public policy because it was connected to divorce proceedings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decree enforcing the separation agreement and the arrearage award.
- The chancellor’s credibility determinations and factual findings were supported by the record and were not disturbed.
- The husband’s fraud claim failed; his asserted misunderstanding resulted from his failure to read the contract despite an opportunity to do so, amounting at most to unilateral mistake.
- Any lack of consideration did not defeat enforceability because the agreement contained an express statement that the husband intended to be legally bound under the Uniform Written Obligations Act.
- The agreement was not contrary to public policy because the support obligation was not conditioned on the grant of a divorce and the agreement preserved the husband’s right to contest divorce proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- In equity, credibility determinations are for the chancellor; appellate review asks whether findings are adequately supported by the evidence as a whole.
- Under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act, a written promise is enforceable without consideration if it contains an express statement that the signer intends to be legally bound.
- A party’s failure to read an agreement, when given an opportunity and where the terms were read aloud, constitutes carelessness or unilateral mistake, not actionable fraud.
- A separation agreement is not void on public policy grounds when the obligations are not conditioned on obtaining a divorce and do not restrict a party’s right to contest divorce proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the husband’s weekly support promise and upheld arrears and specific performance, holding that the chancellor’s credibility findings controlled, the husband showed no fraud, the “legally bound” language supplied enforceability without consideration under the Uniform Written Obligations Act, and the agreement did not violate public policy.


Kay v. Kay, 334 A.2d 585 (Pa. 1975)