The following story appeared in the local paper, Collegetopia Today. Collegetopia is a common law jurisdiction, relying on case law, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, and the UCC apply.

COLLEGETOPIA, Washington - Tape-recorded telephone conversations between Defendant Dyllan, governor of Collegetopia, and the Plaintiff Pat bolstered Dyllan's legal claims that the governor agreed to pay Dyllan $4,000 per month until Dyllan's teen-age child finishes college. Pat and Dyllan attorneys contend that Dyllan made a legally binding contract to financially support Dyllan and Dyllan's child. Their affair ended in 2006. Pat has indicated that Dyllan made payments to Dyllan for three years, then stopped and Pat filed a lawsuit for past due payments; additionally, Pat asks for damages of $4,000 per month from August 2010 until May 2015, when Dyllan's child will graduate from college.

For the first time, transcripts of phone conversations between Dyllan and Pat were made part of the record in the Collegetopia District Court, wDyllane Pat last July filed suit against Dyllan. In the suit, Pat charged that Dyllan made a legally binding contract to provide financial support for Dyllan and Dyllan's child. Pat alleges that Dyllan agreed to make payments until Pat was able to get and keep a job in Dyllan's fieldfundraising and public relationsor, in the event she was unable to get and keep such a job, to continue the payments until Dyllan's child was out of school and college.

Dyllan's lawyer countered with a motion to dismiss Pat's claims. Dyllan's lawyer argued that Pat claimed only a verbal contract beginning in 2006 and that Collegetopian law required terms of such contracts be fulfilled within one year. Dyllan's lawyer claimed that there wasn't a contract because Collegetopian law required that both parties give something of value to the other party. Finally, Dyllan's lawyer claimed that Pat had not agreed to do anything in return for the payments Pat said Dyllan was obligated to make.

Pat's lawyer countered Tuesday, contending that taped phone conversations between Dyllan and Pat constituted "a writing" and were evidence that a binding contract existed. Pat's lawyer also claimed that Pat, for Dyllan's part of the contract, had agreed not to file a lawsuit against Dyllan over their having divulged private details to news reporters about their affair.

Transcriptions entered in the court record were from several phone conversations in those three years (from 2016-2019). In a purported phone conversation from 2018, Dyllan allegedly pledged to Pat that they would continue sending Dyllan money.

What is the right judgement the judge should make and why? (provide rules and laws relevant)