Oral Property Settlement Agreement Invalid Where Husband Insists Terms “Subject to” Entering Written Agreement

In the case of Bryant v. McDougal, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in ruling that a husband entered into a valid and binding property settlement agreement with his wife, and in incorporating the terms of the purported agreement into the parties’ final decree of divorce.  The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled this was the case even though the husband had affirmed before a court reporter the terms of an oral property agreement he had negotiated with his wife’s attorney at her attorney’s office.  Even though the husband made the affirmation, he also twice stated on the record in open court that his assent was “subject to” the terms of the oral agreement being set forth in a written agreement.