Peter and Laureen were married on February 16, 1975; they are the parents of two adult children, Amanda and Matthew. In 1996, Peter and Laureen were on the verge of seeking a divorce. Peter had not been living in the marital home for almost two years. According to Laureen's testimony in the instant case, Peter had been verbally abusive to her; moreover, Peter admitted to having engaged in extramarital affairs. When Peter requested permission to return to the marital home, several conversations took place between Peter and Laureen. In May of 1996, there was a family meeting regarding Peter's request. That meeting was attended by Peter, Laureen, and the two children. It was Laureen's testimony that, during this meeting, she agreed to allow Peter back into the marital home if he fulfilled three conditions: (1) continued alcohol treatment counseling; (2) contribution to family expenses; and (3) waiver of any claim to Laureen's pension. The agreement was made orally. Laureen and the two children testified that Peter assented to these three conditions. Peter, for his part, acknowledged that the family meeting had taken place and that he had agreed to the first two conditions, but he denied that they had discussed any waiver of his interest in Laureen's pension. Shortly after the family meeting, Peter returned to the marital home. In November of 2002, Laureen and Peter separated for the final time. Laureen obtained a restraining order against Peter, which called for his removal from the family home and prohibited him from having any contact with Laureen. Ultimately, the trial court awarded Laureen 80% of the family assets and denied Peter any portion of Laureen's pension. Peter claims that he never agreed to condition #3 and that he is entitled to a portion of Laureen's pension. Is the oral contract stated above enforceable? And are Peter's three alleged promises sufficient consideration to permit the court to uphold the conditions of the contract and deny Peter's request for a portion of Laureen's pension? How should the court rule? [Deangelis v. Deangelis, 923 A.2d 1274 (R.I. 2007)].