Crispo v. Crispo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that property settlement agreement, which set forth a schedule of payments of marital debts, was a continuing contract because it did not provide a specific start date for the payments or a deadline by which the payments must be completed
• providing that acknowledgment of a debt consistent with a promise to pay a debt may toll the statute of limitations or remove its bar
• stating that wife’s failure to make a specific demand for performance of the marital settlement agreement does not bar her from recovering the $22,500.00 clearly owed by husband
• explaining where property settlement agreement did not merge into divorce decree, it stood as separate contract subject to law governing contracts
• explaining where property settlement agreement did not merge into divorce decree, it stood as a separate contract subject to law governing contracts
• noting, “[w]hen a contract is continuing, the statute of limitations will run either from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).