Goldman v. Goldman,
543 A.2d 1304 (R.I. 1988).



Facts: Alan Goldman (P) filed a complaint for divorce. Pauline Goldman (D) filed a counterclaim for divorce. Prior to the entry of the judgment of divorce, P and D executed a marital settlement agreement. This agreement provided for support payments for D and specifically stated that the agreement would not merge into any subsequent divorce. At the time the judgment of divorce in favor of D's counterclaim was entered, the trial judge merged the agreement into the judgment upon D's direct testimony agreeing to the merger and without any objection from P. Thereafter, P filed this petition to reduce support because D was living openly with an unrelated male for a prolonged period. This warranted a modification to her support payments based upon the statute modifying alimony in a judgment of divorce. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the separation agreement was a viable contract and had not merged into the judgment of divorce. P appeals.

Issue: Will a separation agreement that specifically provides for no merger in a subsequent judgment of divorce nevertheless be merged if the parties verbally consent to that merger?

Rule: A written contract may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement even if the parties have failed to employ the particular method of modification as specified in the contract.

Holding: Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court, Fay, C.J., held that: (1) when trial justice merged marital-settlement agreement into final divorce judgment with assent of parties, judgment superseded any language to contrary within agreement, and (2) if former husband established that as a result of former wife's alleged cohabitation her economic circumstances had substantially changed, family court could modify alimony.