[14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). Spousal Support Settlement Agreements Are Governed By The Law of Contracts In determining that agreements for contractual alimony are not void, the Francis 001111; clearly distinguished between court-ordered alimony payments and assumed contractual obligations for support. Francis, 412 S.W.2d at 33 (emphasis added). The court held that an assumed obligation for spousal support is properly characterized as a contractual duty having “whatever legal force the law of contracts will give to it.” Francis, 412 S.W.2d at 31 (emphasis added). Even before the Francis decision, the supreme court had held that a settlement agreement adopted in a divorce decree falls within the purview of contract law. See Ex parte Jones, 163 Tex. 513, 358 S.W.2d 370, 375 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Since Francis, the supreme court has, on
holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions holding that judgment based on terms of settlement agreement must be interpreted under law of contracts rather than law of judgments holding that under illinois law silence can constitute acceptance under the terms of the restatement of contracts holding that federal law regarding costs applies rather than more generously interpreted state law