Emancipation Granted And Alimony Increase Denied

Dripps v. Dripps, is an appeal from a Family Court Order issued pursuant to the parties post-judgment divorce Motions with regard to alimony and emancipation. The Defendant, ex-wife, moved before the court for an increase in her alimony. The Plaintiff, ex-husband, brought a Cross-Motion for relief which included the emancipation of the parties' two (2) children. The Family Court issued an Order denying an increase in alimony, granting the emancipation of the children, and denying the Motion for reconsideration. The Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Division. On appeal, the Defendant essentially sought to re-litigate the property settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated into the parties' final judgment of divorce. Specifically, the Defendant contested the Family Court's failure to increase her alimony and the grant of emancipation of her children. According to the Appellate Court, on appeal, legal issues involving the interpretation of a contract are subject to plenary review. Vosough v. Kierce,437 N.J. Super. 218, 241, 97 A.3d 1150 (App. Div. 2014), certif. denied, 221 N.J. 218, 110 A.3d 931 (2015). "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts" are not entitled to "special deference" on appeal. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d 1230 (1995). However, the Family Court's findings of fact should be upheld "if they are supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence on the record" and they are not "so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279, 914 A.2d 1265 (2007). When a Motion or a Cross Motion is brought for enforcement or modification of a prior Order or Judgment, a copy of the Order or Judgment sought to be enforced or modified shall be appended to the pleading filed in support of the Motion. N.J. Court Rule 5:5-4. Further, when a Motion is brought for the entry or modification of an Order or Judgment for alimony or child support based upon a showing of changed circumstances, the pleading filed in support of that Motion shall have appended to it a copy of the prior Case Information Statements (CIS). Id. The Defendant failed to submit the prior Judgement of Divorce (JOD) and PSA and failed to submit the requisite CIS, and therefore the Appellate Division found that the court properly denied her Motion. With regard to the emancipation, one of the children was twenty-three (23) and the other twenty-two (22), working and had not attended college for three (3) semesters. According to the Appellate Court, the circumstances of the children at the time of the hearing clearly met the parties' PSA definition of emancipation and public policy favors settlement of litigation. Bistricer v. Bistricer, 231 N.J. Super. 143, 151, 555 A.2d 45 (Ch. Div. 1987). An agreement to settle litigation is a contract, which like all contracts freely entered into, should be honored and enforced absent fraud or other compelling circumstances. Brundage v Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601, 951 A.2d 947 (2008). Therefore, the decisions of the Family Court were affirmed. Being that the laws governing alimony have recently been changed, it is very important that you seek out the advice of an attorney to protect your rights an entitlements. If you think that it may be beneficial for you to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony or emancipation status of your children or for any other reason it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, divorce, post-judgment modification, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Oral Equitable Distribution Agreement Enforced By Court

In Ahlstrom v. Monteferrario, a case coming out of Bergen County, the Plaintiff appealed from a dual judgment of divorce with regard to the parties' oral agreement concerning the equitable distribution of their marital home. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's judgment. In 2007, prior to the parties' 2008 marriage, they purchased a house for $759,000. The deed of the home stated that the parties were owners as tenants in common, "each owner with a 50% ownership share." The Plaintiff advanced $314,559.20 as a down payment. The balance of the purchase price was covered by a mortgage on which both parties were the borrowers, but only the Plaintiff was on the note due to the Defendant's credit issues. After the house was purchased the parties entered into a Co-Ownership Agreement (COA) in 2007, which was prepared by the Defendant's attorney. This agreement detailed the parties' ownership and provided that if the house was sold each party would receive 50% of the net profits. The marriage fell apart and by 2011, the parties reached an oral agreement resolving all issues related to the divorce, alimony, and equitable distribution. The Plaintiff's lawyer sent a draft PSA to the Defendant's lawyer that provided that "[e]ffective with the date [defendant] vacated the martial residence, he has had and shall not have any obligation for the mortgage," and that the Plaintiff would hold the Defendant harmless in connection with the mortgage. In the end, the parties failed to mutually execute the PSA. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Divorce and subsequently filed a Motion to enforce the COA, demanding that the Defendant repay her the $37,652.40 mortgage payments she made and to repay the mortgage in the future. The Family Court Judge held a ten day trial and a plenary hearing under Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39, 656 A.2d 456 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 142 N.J. 455 663 A.2d 1361 (1995). In the 2013, dual judgment of divorce, the trial court discredited the Plaintiff, credited the Defendant, and found that the parties had reached a binding oral agreement. The Plaintiff appealed arguing that the parties' discussions never resulted in a binding verbal agreement. According to the Appellate Division, New Jersey courts strain "to give effect to the terms of a settlement agreement wherever possible." Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601, 951 A.2d 947 (2008). An agreement to settle "is a contract, which like all contracts, may be freely entered into and which a court, absent a demonstration of 'fraud or other compelling circumstances,' should honor and enforce." Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118, 124-25, 462 A.2d 186 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 94 N.J. 600, 468 A.2d (1983). The Appellate Court in Harrington, held that "to be enforceable, matrimonial agreements, as any other agreements, need not necessarily be reduced to writing or placed on the record." Harringon, 281 N.J. Super. 39 at 46. "Where the parties agree upon the essential terms of settlement, so that the mechanics can be 'fleshed out' in a writing to be thereafter executed, the settlement will be enforced notwithstanding the fact that the writing does not materialize because a party later reneges." Id. In this case, the Appellate Court found that the parties entered into a binding oral agreement based upon the evidence submitted into the record and therefore the Family Court's judgment was correct. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your settlement agreement or divorce judgment regarding the equitable distribution of your property may be beneficial to you it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, equitable distribution, alimony, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.

Alimony Term Of Property Settlement Agreement Will Not Be Reinterpreted By The Court

In Sercia v. Sercia, the Defendant appealed from a post-judgment matrimonial Family Court Order that denied her Motion for the payment of supplemental alimony from the Plaintiff's annual bonus income under. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties were married in 1999 and have two (2) children. The Plaintiff filed for divorce and the parties amicably resolved all issues and executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated into their final divorce judgment in 2010. In the agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay alimony and child support based upon his salary of $125,000 and the Defendant's imputed income of $20,000. Further, a provision in the agreement specified that the Plaintiff was to pay the Defendant one third of the net cash bonus that he earned each year in addition to the alimony award. Under the PSA, the Defendant was only entitled to a share of the Plaintiff's bonus when the bonus totaled $100,000 or greater. In 2011, the Defendant submitted a Motion to enforce litigant's rights and among the relief that she requested was to compel the Plaintiff to pay one third of his bonus. The Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion. The judge denied the Defendant's request because the Plaintiff's bonus did not come close to $100,000. Another Motion was submitted in 2013 in which the Defendant requested discovery regarding the Plaintiff's income and bonus income, payment of one third the net bonus for 2010, 2011, and 2012, and counsel fees. The Plaintiff did not respond. A Family Court judge granted the Defendant's request for discovery, but denied her request for the payment of supplemental alimony. The Defendant appealed from this decision arguing that the language of the parties' PSA was being misinterpreted by the court and by the Plaintiff and that it was intended to award her with alimony payments both from the Plaintiff's base income, as well as, his bonus despite the amount. According to the Appellate Court: "An agreement to settle a lawsuit is a contract, which like all contracts, may be freely entered into and which a court, absent a demonstration of fraud or other compelling circumstances, should honor and enforce as it does other contracts." Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601 (2008). "When examining the terms of a settlement agreement, we are guided by the rules of contract construction." Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 436 N.J. Super. 594, 601 (App. Div. 2014); Thompson v. City of Atl. City, 190 N.J. 359, 379 (2007). "The polestar of contract construction is to discover the intention of the parties as revealed by the language used by them." Karl's Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 249 N.J. Super. 487, 492 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 127 N.J. 548 (1991). Therefore, a court cannot re-write a contract or grant a better deal than that for which the parties expressly bargained. Solondz v. Kornmehl, 317 N.J. Super. 16, 21 (App. Div. 1998). The Appellate Division held that the language at issue in the parties' PSA is unambiguous and therefore should be applied as the Family Courts and the Plaintiff have understood it to apply. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your property settlement agreement (PSA) regarding alimony may be beneficial to you or if you anticipate defending the language of your PSA as written it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, alimony, equitable distribution or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.

Hiding Assets From Equitable Distribution Voids Divorce

In Zuba v. Zuba, the Plaintiff appealed the Family Court's denial of her Motion to re-open her final judgment of divorce (FJOD) based upon information that she received afterward that indicated that the Defendant had concealed property that was subject to equitable distribution. The Appellate Court vacated the Family Court's judgment and remanded the case for further discovery proceedings. In this case, the parties were married in 1980 and divorced in 2011. According to the property settlement agreement (PSA) that was incorporated into their divorce judgment: "The parties represent[ed] that each of them ha[d] candidly and fully disclosed to the other all of their income, assets and liabilities as of the execution of th[e] Agreement." Following the parties' divorce the Defendant lived with a third party and allegedly disclosed to the party and other members of her family that he owed property in Costa Rica and had a bank account in Belize that he did not include in his Case Information Statement (CIS) that was filed during his divorce. After the Defendant left her house, the third party contacted the Plaintiff and told her about the concealed property that the Defendant had hidden during their marriage. In 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to set aside the parties' PSA based upon the Defendant's oral and written assertions that the marital property listed in the PSA and his CIS was the entire marital estate. The Family Court judge denied the Motion holding that the Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for fraud. The Plaintiff appealed arguing that at the very least she was entitled to post-judgment discovery and a potential plenary hearing following the discovery period based upon her petition to have her divorce judgment vacated under Rule 4:50-1. According to the Appellate Division, New Jersey has a strong public policy that favors the settlement of litigation. Gere v. Louis, 209 N.J. 486, 500 (2012). "[T]he settlement of litigation ranks high in our public policy." Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601 (2008). The court also recognized that Motions to set aside final divorce judgments under N.J. Court Rule 4:50-1 are only to be granted sparingly, but the Rule does permit relief when the facts and equities compel, specifically in the context involving equitable distribution marital assets. The court held that "where there is a showing of fraud of misconduct by a spouse in failing to disclose the true worth of his or her assets, relief may be granted under Rule 4:50-1(f) if the motion is made within a reasonable time. Rosen v. Rosen, 225 N.J. Super. 33, 36, (App Div.) certif. denied 111 N.J. 649 (1988). The equitable distribution of assets is of the most emotional and complex aspects of a divorce. If you are involved in a battle over the division of marital property, assets, or debts it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about equitable distribution, post-judgment modification, contested divorce, spousal support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.