A married couple’s discussion that both would need to work in order to pay for their children’s college educations does not amount to a contract requiring both parties to share those bills after divorcing, a Superior Court panel has ruled.
Judge John T. Bender, who authored the opinion, seemed to use the decision as a means of drawing a distinction between marital planning and enforceable oral agreements.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
