Bugg v. Bugg
| Decision Date | 21 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20816,20816 |
| Citation | 272 S.C. 122,249 S.E.2d 505 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Roger Mae W. BUGG, Appellant, v. Bernard BUGG, Respondent. |
Joseph T. McElveen, Jr., of Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen, Sumter, for appellant.
John O. McDougall of Weinberg, Warner, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for respondent.
This appeal is from a family court order which adopted an unsigned, out-of-court, purported agreement between the parties as determinative of their respective property rights in an action for separate support and maintenance. We reverse.
This action was commenced by appellant (wife) on July 12, 1977 for separate maintenance and support, a property division, and attorney's fees from respondent (husband). The parties have been married for 35 years and all children of the marriage are emancipated. A final hearing in the matter was scheduled before the Family Court Judge on November 2, 1977. Just prior to this hearing the parties, through their respective counsel, entered into negotiations by telephone in an attempt to arrive at a settlement of the issues in dispute. An oral agreement acceptable to both parties and their respective counsel was reached over the telephone on the night of November 1st, and the hearing scheduled for the following day was cancelled. This settlement was confirmed by the wife's counsel in a letter to the husband's counsel dated November 2nd, which stated in part:
This will confirm our settlement of the above case. You are to prepare an agreement and submit it to me at the earliest possible time so that we can conclude this matter. The following is the full agreement: (here follows a detailed statement of the settlement being confirmed)
The husband's attorney responded immediately by forwarding a "proposed Order and Separation and Property Settlement Agreement" along with a cover letter which contained the following directions . . . I would appreciate your having your client review same and if she concurs, have her sign it, returned to me, I will obtain Mr. Bugg's signature on same, submit it to the court and forward you a certified copy of same.
The proposed agreement and cover letter were forwarded to the wife by her attorney on November 4th, and she replied to her attorney on November 6th that she was unable to discuss the matter with him due to illness. On November 17th, appellant advised her counsel that after consideration she had decided not to sign the proposed agreement, whereupon her attorney immediately so advised counsel for the respondent.
On November 22nd, respondent filed a Petition with the Family Court praying that the proposed agreement be made the order of the court and that the appellant be required to execute any documents necessary to give full effect to said agreement. A hearing was held on December 16th at which time the court inquired of both parties as to whether the proposed agreement correctly stated the settlement terms verbally agreed to by them. Both parties affirmatively replied, but appellant in her testimony stated:
. . . well when I read the proposal I realized that my verbal agreement had been a terrible mistake (sic) to the fact that I put so much into the family during the past years. In addition to working, I had taken care of the household, the yard and the house. I had contributed money towards the upkeep on the house, I paid the groceries, and bought clothes for the family, helped with the children's education.
The lower court entered a final order confirming the agreement and incorporating it as a part thereof. 1
While we have been cited to cases from other jurisdictions in the special area of out-of-court agreements incident to marriage separations, we do not consider them relevant to the factual posture of the present case. The fact that the agreement before us is incident to a marriage separation does not suspend the application of general contract principles in determining whether a valid contract was in fact ever entered into by the parties. The application of these principles, in our judgment, properly disposes of this case.
Whether the parties to an oral or informal agreement became bound prior to the execution of a contemplated formal writing is a question depending largely upon their intention. This principle is sometimes expressed as whether they intend the formal writing to be a condition precedent to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanton Enterprises, Inc. v. Burger King Corp.
...intended to be bound only after BKC issued written approvals and the parties reduced their agreement to writing. In Bugg v. Bugg, 272 S.C. 122, 249 S.E.2d 505, 507 (1978), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that "whether the parties to an oral or informal agreement become bound prior to ......
-
ELECTRO LAB OF AIKEN v. SHARP CONST.
...testimony of all witnesses; and subsequent acts are relevant to show whether a contract was intended."). See also Bugg v. Bugg, 272 S.C. 122, 125, 249 S.E.2d 505, 507 (1978) ("Where it is determined that the parties intended not to be bound until the written contract is executed, no valid a......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jones
...1, 1981 agreement." Vol. I, Supp. App., p. 676.6 The same result would be reached under South Carolina law. Bugg v. Bugg, 272 S.C. 122, 125-56, 249 S.E.2d 505 (1978); Reed v. Boykin, 282 S.C. 614, 320 S.E.2d 68, 69 (S.C.Ct.App.1984).7 Rule 8(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. requires claim of estoppel to be......
-
Truauto MC, LLC v. Textron Specialized Vehicles, Inc.
... ... undisputed evidence shows the “parties intended not to ... be bound until [a] written contract [was] executed, ” ... Bugg v. Bugg, 272 S.C. 122, 249 S.E.2d 505, 507 ... (S.C. 1978) (noting that “[w]here it is determined that ... the parties intended not to ... ...
-
Agreement to Agree/ Letters of Intent
...cmt. c (1981). [8] Precision Testing Laboratories, Ltd. v. Kenyon Corp. of Am., 644 F.Supp. 1327, 1342 (S.D. NY 1986). [9] Bugg v. Bugg, 272 S.C. 122, 125, 249 S.E.2d 505, 507 (1978). [10] Id. [11] McLaurin v. Hamer, 165 S.C. 411, 164 S.E. 2 (1932). [12] 272 S.C. 122, 249 S.E.2d 505 (1978).......