Taylor v. Taylor

Utah Court of Appeals · 2025 · Family Law

Family LawPostnuptial AgreementsAlimonyContract EnforceabilityChoice of Lawpostnuptial agreementalimonyindefiniteness

Facts

Before marrying in 2012, Jackie and Mark signed a prenuptial agreement in Virginia waiving alimony claims. In 2019, while living in Texas, they executed a postnuptial agreement that eliminated that waiver and provided that upon divorce Mark would pay Jackie at least 20% of his income as alimony, or at least 30% if Mark had committed infidelity; the agreement also stated that Texas law would govern its construction and enforcement. After the parties moved to Utah and Jackie filed for divorce, she sought enforcement of those provisions. The district court concluded the provisions were unenforceable because they lacked essential terms regarding payment timing, updating income, and the meaning of "income."

Issue

Whether, under Texas law, the alimony provisions in the parties' postnuptial agreement were unenforceable for indefiniteness because they did not expressly specify payment schedules, procedures for updating income and alimony, effective dates of modifications, and the meaning of the word "income."

Rule

Under Texas law, a contract is enforceable if its essential terms are stated with a reasonable degree of certainty and definiteness sufficient to show the parties intended to be bound. Texas courts disfavor forfeiture based on indefiniteness and may supplement uncertain terms by implication, surrounding circumstances, applicable law, or usage of trade; where a Texas-governed agreement ties a minimum alimony obligation to a percentage of "income," that term may be supplemented to mean gross income as defined in Texas Family Code section 8.055(a-1).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While living in Dallas, Nora Bennett and Elias Bennett signed a marital agreement providing that if they later divorced, Elias would pay Nora "no less than 18% of his income as spousal support," and the agreement stated it would be governed by Texas law. After they moved to Salt Lake City, Nora filed for divorce in Utah, and Elias argued the clause was unenforceable because it did not specify whether payments were due weekly, monthly, or annually.

How should the Utah court most likely rule on Elias's indefiniteness argument?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a Texas-governed marital agreement guaranteeing a minimum level of support is not indefinite merely because it omits details such as payment timing. Where the agreement contemplates a divorce court making an alimony award under the law of the forum, matters like timing and manner of payment are governed by that forum's alimony law. Texas law disfavors forfeiture for indefiniteness when missing terms can reasonably be supplied.