Marilyn R. ROSEN (Sugalski) v. Henry N. ROSEN, 413 S.E.

2d 6 (1992)
Facts: Marilyn Rosen filed an appeal in the error to the trial courts for denial of her motion for
summary and questioning of enforceability of the following provisions in the parties separation
agreement. Defendant, Henry Rosen and Plaintiff Mary Rosen, had a set agreement on matters
involving undergraduate schooling tuition before their kids were of age for college. The said
child entering college her first 3 years totalled to the amount of $34,156.00 Marilyn Rosen feels
as if the defendant isnt contributing fair amounts to the educational provisions of the
agreement.
Issue: Whether or not the defendant is required under the agreement to pay for his childs
undergraduate schooling?
Holding: No. The court held that it cannot mandate the defendant to pay for the daughters
schooling.
Reasoning:. Defendant clearly instructed his attorney not to include set amount of numbers or
percentage when documenting his obligations to the agreement. Defendant chose to leave the
provisions open based on his financial situation and his relationship with his daughters. The
elements of every contract is a mutual agreement and does not stand if there isnt a meeting of
the minds to all terms of the agreement. A agreement will not stand if theres any portion
disagreed upon the parties and is known as void indefinitely. There was no mutual agreement
when it came to the amount that would be contributed by the defendant towards the childs
education in the separation agreement.