In-Court Agreement by Divorcing Spouses Held to Be Binding
- At September 12, 2025
- By Kathryn Owen
- In Divorce, Divorce Process, Family Law
0
Tennessee case summary on binding agreements in divorce.
Spouses’ in-court agreement was held binding.
Kimberly Sue Speranza v. Scott Michael Speranza
The husband and wife in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case were married for 21 years. The wife was 58 years old at the time of their divorce and had primarily been a homemaker. The husband was 57 and was the owner of a company he had founded during the marriage. They had two children who were both past the age of majority.
After contentious litigation, the case was set for trial in 2023. On the third day of trial, the parties announced that they had settled the issues, and announced their agreement in court. The trial court instructed them to prepare a final decree. But when the husband submitted a proposal, the wife refused to sign.
The husband then made motion to enter a final decree. A hearing was held, after which the trial court entered the husband’s proposed final decree. The wife made a motion to amend the judgment, which was denied, and she appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The wife first argued that the trial court erred in entering the final decree, sich she had not agreed to it in a written, signed, notarized agreement. But the appeals court rejected this argument. It noted that the parties had stipulated in court to the ground of irreconcilable differences, and that stipulation permitted the court to declare the parties divorced.
The wife argued, however, that there was no binding consent judgment as to all of the issues.
But here, the appeals court reviewed the 20 pages of transcript in which the parties’ attorneys announced the agreement as to numerous issues. As to those issues, it found the agreement binding.
The appeals court did identify one issue as to which the wife had not specifically agreed, relating to the husband’s business. But on this issue, the appeals court concluded that the language of the decree adequately reflected the parties’ agreement.
The appeals court did find that since the husband was the prevailing party on appeal, that he was entitled to his attorney’s fees, since this provision was included in the parties’ agreement. Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s judgment, but remanded for computation of the amount of the fees.
No. M2024-00347-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2025).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
