Walter Don Ty

Walter Ty

This former client entered into an agreement resolving all issues in her divorce after months of back and forth, and a final two hours of negotiations the day of her hearing. The agreement was finalized. After a few days, it was clear that she changed her mind. Prior to ANY court agreement being finalized, the terms are read FULLY onto the Record of the Court. EACH AND EVERY AGREED UPON and WAIVED provision is read. After that, parties are "Voir Dire'd" (questioned) on their understanding and voluntariness of their agreement. They are given opportunity to ask questions of the Court and their lawyer(s) before any agreement is accepted by Court. The Judge then has to make a finding that the agreement was voluntarily made and acceptable to the Court, which occurred in this case. A few days later, it was claer that this former client was not going to adhere to her agreement. A review hearing was set to address the issue of why this Client would NOT follow her agreement, where she was given ample the time to tell the Court about her issues. She chose to appear at this clearly incredibly important event without counsel. At the conclusion of the review hearing, below is a direct quote as to the Courts findings, which, suffice to say, were not in her favor: PRESIDING JUDGE: "I want to thank you folks for your patience. When there's general concern, you return to the case law. And I'll note a case, Patterson versus Patterson, that's 491, Md. 551. It's from July of this year. The issues, as I understand it, are the following. That on [the hearing date], 2025, the parties were set for a three-day divorce. It was at that time the parties, who were both represented by counsel, came to this Court and requested additional time to resolve their issues. As a measure of grace, the Court gave additional time for the parties to resolve their issues. The Court returned an hour later. I went back and I listened to the hearing. The parties asked for additional time. That additional time I gave. It was at that time that the plaintiff was placed under oath. He was questioned by Counsel. There were no objections modifications at that particular time. Likewise, the defendant [THIS FORMER CLIENT] was placed under oath. She was questioned by incredible counsel [direct quote]. And from there, there were no objections...In the instant matter, we don't find, the Court does not find any fraud, irregularity, mistake, unconscionability. We have not seen anything that would amount that the contract is not enforceable...The parties were qualified under basic contract principles...And the reason I said that, once again, I'm just returning to the case law, I don't find anything from [the hearing date] that offends the Court. I gave you hours to negotiate. I don't find anything that was akin to fraud, irregularity, mistake or unconscionability. The parties were sworn, placed under oath. I listened to the divorce proceeding when I returned back to chambers and there's nothing that offends this Court, that both parties operated knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily. They were not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol that would impair their ability to understand the agreement or understand the questions by counsel. So, with that being said, I've made my ruling. I understand your disappointment. I appreciate that but I feel that both parties operate as equals and the transcript will be reduced to a judgment." I understand that this former client is still trying to overturn her agreement in Court, I will edit this response with an update on her efforts.