2

Assume two individuals A and B make an oral contract, say A waives unpaid child support in exchange for B buying a house for their children to live at in perpetuity. Both parties follow through, but later B decides to sell the home and evict the children so B can solely financially benefit.

What sort of lawyer would have the expertise needed to help A enforce the oral contract effectively?

holocronweaver
  • 123
  • 3
  • What grounds would B have to evict a standing tenant? –  Jan 20 '23 at 08:03
  • @Rick How about on the grounds of not paying rent? – Greendrake Jan 20 '23 at 14:49
  • In most US states and many other jurisdictions, contracts involving the sale or purchase of real estate must be in writing to be enforceable, so the suggested contract would not in any case be enforceable (in such a jurisdiction) by any type of lawyer. – David Siegel Jan 20 '23 at 19:36

3 Answers3

5

Usually, a family law lawyer would handle a matter like this one.

I am refraining from prejudging the outcome on the merits.

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
2

What sort of lawyer would have the expertise needed to help A enforce the oral contract effectively?

None.

That contract would not be enforceable even if it was in writing.

Child support payments are mandated for the benefit of the children: A was not in the position to "waive" or "exchange" them in the first place .

So, B is still liable to pay all the unpaid child support, and B solely owns the house they bought and so is free to sell it.

Greendrake
  • 27,460
  • 4
  • 63
  • 126
  • Is it not permissible for a contract to say that one party won't seek a certain type of court action? – user253751 Jan 20 '23 at 12:39
  • @user253751 Permissible, but there needs to be a valid contract in the first place. None here. – Greendrake Jan 20 '23 at 13:02
  • which factor of contract validity says you can't agree not to ask for child support? – user253751 Jan 20 '23 at 13:10
  • @user253751 Child support payments are required by law. The recipient gets them for the benefit of the kids, not for themselves. They cannot be "not to asked" for. – Greendrake Jan 20 '23 at 13:25
  • I'm not sure I've ever heard of the state deciding upon child support payments without one parent going to court and requesting them. – user253751 Jan 20 '23 at 13:26
  • 2
    @user253751 The state won't decide of course if it doesn't know that the kids aren't being cared for by both parents. But the entitlement to receive child support exists from the moment the parents are separated, not from when the court decides who pays and how much. That entitlement can't be waived/traded as it exists for the benefit of the kids, and neither parent can decide that the kids aren't entitled. – Greendrake Jan 20 '23 at 13:49
  • can you show when the state decided on child support without it being requested? – user253751 Jan 20 '23 at 13:52
  • @user253751 The state decides on how specifically the entitlement to receive child support is realized, not whether it exists (which it does by the law if the parents are separated). It's the decision to order/enforce payments that has to be specifically requested, but not the entitlement itself. See the difference? If the caring parent doesn't request it, but then say they lose custody of the kids for whatever reason, the new guardian will request it, and the other parent will have to pay regardless of what they have agreed with the first parent. – Greendrake Jan 20 '23 at 14:12
  • 2
    This answer is basically correct. A can't waive her child's right to child support from B any more than she can waive the bank's right to repayment of B's. It's not her money to negotiate with. – bdb484 Jan 20 '23 at 14:24
  • Perhaps this added detail can help: A signed a written document waiving child support to allow B to complete bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court accepted this document. Thus the initial assertion that A cannot waive child support seems to be incorrect, unless the bankruptcy court was in error. But this answer doesn't respond to the fundamental question being posed: what sort of lawyer would be able to provide expertise in this situation to assist A? – holocronweaver Jan 20 '23 at 19:08
  • @holocronweaver I would have said "family lawyer" if the question indeed was "to provide expertise to assist". But it is "to help enforce". Since the contract can't be enforced in principle, no lawyer can do it. – Greendrake Jan 21 '23 at 01:34
2

A family law lawyer would be able to advise whether such a term or contract could be enforced and if so, could also provide representation when trying to enforce it.

Jen
  • 54,294
  • 5
  • 110
  • 242