Can a person sign a contract committing to never taking an ex-spouse to Family Court? Can a person sign a contract committing to never taking an ex-spouse to Family Court? For example, as part of a divorce agreement, my (soon to be) ex-spouse wants me to put money aside in escrow that my ex can use in the event that I open up a case in Family Court. The ex is paranoid that I will continue litigation, as is agreeing to certain concessions if I agree to this stipulation. When my youngest child turns 21, the escrowed money will go to me. But if I open a case before then, he wants to be able to use the escrowed money for his lawyers. Is this escrow arrangement legally enforceable?
Can a person sign a contract committing to never taking an ex-spouse to Family Court? Basically no. There are important circumstances where waiving a right to sue is not allowed as a matter of law, which often apply. This cannot be done: (1) if the existence or validity of the marriage is disputed, (2) in cases where there are (or could be) minor children, (3) in cases where there are adult children in connection with whom there is child support owed, that is not approved by the court with the child or a guardian for a child approving it, (4) in the case of alimony provisions that are &quot;unconscionable&quot; as that standard is defined for family law purposes, and (5) in cases where there was a defect (such as lack of adequate financial disclosure) in connection with entering into the agreement in question. But, otherwise, it is possible to agree to property divisions in a divorce, attorney fee divisions in a completed divorce, and to alimony awards, that cannot be challenged in court except on the grounds shown above. Often a family court will retain jurisdiction to resolve disputes that arise to interpret property division and alimony awards that were properly entered into when the alimony award was not unconscionable at the time it comes into being, and to enforce breaches of the agreement. But this doesn't have to be done. When jurisdiction is not retained, questions of interpretation and enforcement can be brought in a new court. I've seen divorces where ambiguities in property division language in agreements are interpreted by courts decades later to figure out who owns what property. In one such case there were two courts that might have had jurisdiction to interpret the agreement of the parties, neither of which thought that it had jurisdiction over the case, so to parallel consolidated appeals had to be brought to decide which court had the authority to resolve an ambiguity in the original agreement before either court could get to the merits of the dispute between the parties. Of course, at some point, all the kids will be grown, there will be no outstanding child support amounts owed, all property will be divided, and in some cases, all alimony awards (if any) will be fully performed. Once that point in time is reached and the statute of limitations for defects in entering into the agreement has run, then no further family court litigation is allowed. For example, as part of a divorce agreement, my (soon to be) ex-spouse wants me to put money aside in escrow that my ex can use in the event that I open up a case in Family Court. The ex is paranoid that I will continue litigation, as is agreeing to certain concessions if I agree to this stipulation. When my youngest child turns 21, the escrowed money will go to me. But if I open a case before then, he wants to be able to use the escrowed money for his lawyers. Is this escrow arrangement legally enforceable? This is probably legally enforceable if it is mutually agreed to, although I've never seen a case in New York specifically addressing that issue. This is a very different question than the title question.
Courts have inherent jurisdiction to reconsider/recall their own decisions. This rarely happens (especially if the decision has already been &quot;sealed&quot; i.e. issued in writing) but still possible. The principle of finality only applies to parties asking courts to reconsider; it does not constrain courts themselves. So, in this example, &quot;the judge agrees to vacate them&quot; but that decision hasn't been sealed yet. The judge can easily just change their mind (although, again, it rarely happens). No double jeopardy applies because it is still the same trial.
A contract that tells one party or another to do an illegal thing is void ab initio: courts will not recognize it or give force to it. A contract which doesnt explicitly tell either party to do something illegal but if during the course of fulfilling either party's end of the bargain they commit an illegal act it is up to the courts discretion what happens, whether to find the contract void or to maintain the contract (its a matter of public policy whether they allow the contract to continue existing, or if the contract was such that illegal acts were expected to be commited then the court will likely remder it void) Either way, you cannot indemnify someone for committing an illegal act.
There are several questions in the OP. The answers to all of them depend on the lease terms. If Person A wants out of the lease, is the only option to just try to negotiate a way out of their portion of the lease with the landlord, presumably by payment or other means? Yes, usually. Regardless of who is on the lease, Person A is on the lease. In order to terminate or break the lease, Person A will have to negotiate termination. Most residential leases provide for joint and several liability for lease obligations. That means the co-signed lease is like three non-exclusive leases, one each between landlord and Persons A, B, and C. So Person A has to find a way to break the Person A lease. Other than a breach by either party, that likely can only be done by negotiation with landlord. What rights do Person B and C have if Person A does stop paying? Absent some other relationship or understanding between them (that is, other than the lease,) likely none. Persons B and C are each fully responsible to pay all of the rent. In other words, as far as the landlord is concerned it does not matter who pays the rent as long as it gets paid. If it doesn't get paid, the landlord can evict and sue all 3 for non-payment of rent. But the lease likely does not discuss the relationships between A, B, and C - whether they pay pro rata by time in the unit, by space used, per capita, or whatever. Landlord doesn't care, and is not the counterparty to those decisions. That said, if there is a relationship between A, B, &amp; C (for instance, if A &amp; B had a contract describing who would pay what, and B entered into another contract with C,) that will determine their relative obligations. The landlord agrees to allow the lease to be amended for another person, person C to be on the lease. Person B negotiated this with the landlord without consent of person A. This may create liability between B to A, C to A, or B &amp; C to A. It is even conceivable that it creates a liability from landlord to A, if A had a reasonable expectation that the lease would not be amended absent A's consent. And the amendment may not be enforceable against A. So, for instance, A may be able to kick C out of the unit and bar C from reentry. It will not effect A's liability to pay rent.
Can the seller enter a formal agreement with the tenants in which the seller pays a sum of money and in return the tenants vacate the premises before the closing date, and would such agreement hold over the tenants legal right to remain on premises past the closing date? Maybe. It depends on tenancy law in Nova Scotia. Notwithstanding, given that the tenants are “difficult”, what are your plans if they take the cash and don’t move out? What happens if the sale goes though under the assumption that the tenants have left, and in fact the tenants are still occupying the premises? Why would the buyer settle under an “assumption”? At the time of settlement either the tenants have left (so settlement happens) or the haven’t (so the vendor is in breach, settlement doesn’t happen and the buyer decides whether to rescind the contract and claim damages or affirm the contract and claim damages). What guarantees and proofs can the buyer demand as to the vacant status of the property? They take the keys and walk into it. What other questions should the buyer be asking? They should be asking: “Will you be in a position to fulfil your obligations under the contract?”
You certainly can't legally steal anything, ever. If it is legal, it is not stealing. In particular, if it is your property, it isn't stealing. The question is really, "is it your property"? This will be jurisdiction dependant. I am familiar with England and Wales, and other common law jurisdictions may be similar. The fact you co-signed for the car definitely does not make it your property. It just means that out of the goodness of your heart, you agreed to reduce the finance company's risk by promising to pay if your ex-friend didn't. In E&amp;W, I don't think it is possible to register a car jointly, but there is a long page explaining that the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner of the car. My guess is that the car probably does not belong to you, so if you take it you will probably end up with a conviction for theft.
Generally, you would have to bring an eviction action just as you would for an ordinary landlord-tenant relationship. This means given written notice served as required by MA law of a deadline to leave, and then if the child did not leave, filing an eviction lawsuit and serving the papers on the child, and then attending an eviction hearing, and then, if you prevailed in that hearing as you probably would (probably with horrible TV and newspaper publicity that might go viral in social media), and then, arrangements would be made to remove him and his stuff from the house on an appointed day with law enforcement and movers and you would change the locks. It would probably take a few weeks start to finish. It is not something that a non-lawyer should try to do themselves. A lawyer would probably charge you a few thousand dollars for this proceeding. The main exception would be that generally a parent has a duty to support an adult disabled child who cannot provide for himself. You probably do not have the legal right to simply kick out your child without an eviction action, although few adult children would choose to push their legal rights not to be removed in that manner if they were. The fact that a child would likely end up homeless in some circumstances if you did this is something that most parents would not be at peace with and would regret later even if they felt good about the decision at the time, but that is a parenting decision and not a legal one.
But I don't see how it is connected, because there is no domestic violence, no child custody One does not need to be violent to violate an agreement. There was an agreement to resolve the situation with the house. You ex did not honour it. You can ask the court to convince him to honour it through a motion for enforcement. It's that simple.