## Facts

- Gregory J. Murphy (husband) and Mary C. Murphy (wife) executed a written separation agreement setting their post-separation financial obligations.
- The agreement required Gregory to pay Mary unallocated alimony and child support of $462 per week (about $2,000 per month), plus an additional $1,000 each December.
- The agreement contemplated that it could be filed “of record in any court of competent jurisdiction.”
- The parties later divorced in the Family Court of the State of Delaware, and the separation agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree by stipulated order (dated June 17, 1983).
- After the decree, Gregory asserted that his income was significantly lower than he expected when he entered the agreement.
- Gregory petitioned the Family Court to reduce the weekly unallocated payment from $462 to $250.
- Mary opposed a permanent reduction but indicated she would accept $350 per week.
- Gregory then asked the court to modify the separation agreement itself; Mary responded that the agreement remained a binding contract and was not subject to judicial revision over her objection.

## Issues

1. After a separation agreement setting unallocated alimony and child support is incorporated into a divorce decree, may the Delaware Family Court modify the payment amount based on changed circumstances, or is modification controlled by contract principles absent a contract-law basis for relief?

## Decision

- The Family Court denied Gregory’s application to reduce the unallocated weekly payment.
- The court treated the separation agreement as a contract whose terms were adopted into the decree, not a support award independently fashioned by the court.
- Incorporation of the agreement into the divorce decree did not, by itself, extinguish the agreement’s contractual nature or convert the obligation into one freely modifiable under the statutory standard for modifying court-ordered support.
- Because Gregory alleged only that his income was lower than anticipated after he agreed to the payment terms—and did not show a contract-law ground such as fraud, duress, overreaching, or mutual mistake—the court declined to rewrite the parties’ bargain.

## Legal Principles

- A separation agreement is a contract, and obligations set by the parties’ agreement are generally enforced according to ordinary contract rules.
- When support terms originate in the parties’ contract and are incorporated into a divorce decree, the court will not modify those terms merely because circumstances later change, unless:
  - the agreement itself authorizes modification, or
  - a recognized basis exists to avoid or reform the contract (e.g., fraud, duress, overreaching, mutual mistake, or similar contract defenses).
- The statutory “real and substantial change of circumstances” standard for modifying a court-made support award does not automatically apply to a payment obligation that stems from an incorporated separation agreement.
- A party’s later dissatisfaction with the financial consequences of an agreed support arrangement, standing alone, is not a sufficient reason for judicial alteration of the agreement.

## Conclusion

Murphy v. Murphy holds that a separation agreement requiring unallocated alimony and child support, even when incorporated into a Delaware divorce decree, remains a contract for purposes of modification; absent contract-law grounds (or a contractual modification clause), the Family Court will enforce the agreed payment terms and will not reduce the obligation based only on the payor’s later claim of reduced or less-than-expected income.


Murphy v. Murphy, 467 A.2d 129 (1983)