Equitable Distribution Dictates Payment Of Mortgage

In Murphy v. Murphy, a New Jersey Appellate Division case out of Morris County, the Defendant appealed from a 2014 Family Court Order that denied his post-judgment Motion to compel the Plaintiff, his ex-wife, to make mortgage payments on the parties' martial residence under the terms they agreed to regarding equitable distribution. The Court also granted her request to compel him to reimburse her for unreimbursed medical expenses and insurance. The parties in this case were married in 1987 and had three (3) children together. They were divorced in 2013, at which time two (2) of their children were emancipated and they shared joint custody of their daughter. Their divorce judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA). In the agreement, the Defendant agreed to paying the carrying charges on the marital home until "the house [was] sold, or through January 1, 2014, whichever [was] sooner." Also, the agreement specified that the Defendant was obligated to maintain medical insurance for the Plaintiff and pay for her uncovered or unreimbursed health care expenses until a certain date. The parties assumed that the marital residence would sell before January 1, 2014, but unfortunately it did not and there was no provision in the agreement that provided for mortgage payments beyond that date. The Defendant stopped paying the mortgage after December of 2013. At the end of January 2014, the Defendant filed a Motion to compel the Plaintiff to start paying the mortgage payments. The Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for an Order compelling the Defendant to pay the mortgage and for unreimbursed medical bills. A Family Court judge denied the Defendant's Motion finding that the parties had previously agreed that there was no equity in the marital residence and therefore continuing to pay the mortgage would not produce a positive result. Therefore, the judge held that neither party would have to pay the mortgage. In addition, the judge granted the Plaintiff's request to compel the Defendant to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses. The Defendant appealed and on appeal the Defendant argued that the parties' MSA did not obligate him to pay the mortgage after January 1, 2014 and he was also not obligated to reimburse the Plaintiff for unreimbursed medical insurance expenses. The Appellate Division agreed with the Defendant's first argument but disagreed with his second. According to the Appellate Division, "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." Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J Super. 118, 124-5 (App Div) certif. denied, 94 N.J. 600 (1983). "Settlement agreements in matrimonial matters, being 'essentially consensual and voluntary in character, ... [are] entitled to considerable weight with respect to their validity and enforceability' in equity, provided they are fair and just." Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. 11, 20 (App. Div. 2006). In this case, the Defendant sought to compel the Plaintiff to pay the mortgage after January 1, 2014 when either the MSA or the divorce judgment specified that she was to do so. The court held that if the Defendant had wanted the Plaintiff to pay the mortgage for as long as she lived in the home he should have negotiated that when the parties were creating their MSA. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's denial of this request. However, the court found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to unreimbursed medical expenses from the Defendant because she incurred those costs after the date contemplated in their divorce judgment and therefore reversed the lower court's ruling with regard to this issue. 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 pre- or post-judgment 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, alimony, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Custody And Parenting Time Dispute Mediation Compelled

In the recent Appellate Division case, Piscopo v. Piscopo, a father petitioned the Family Court to stop his ex-wife from relocating with their children and to compel her to honor their mutually agreed upon Consent Order to resolve issues of custody and parenting time through mediation before going to the courts. The Plaintiff, Brian Piscopo, appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his request to restrain the Defendant, Michelle Piscopo, from: 1) moving to Holmdel, New Jersey with the parties' children, and 2) the modification of the parties' custody and parenting time arrangement. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were married in 2007 and subsequently had two (2) children together. Upon the filing of the divorce complaint the parties participated in custody mediation which was successful. In 2012, the parties entered into a Consent Agreement which seemingly solved all issues with regard to custody and parenting time. According to the Consent Order, the parties agreed to share joint legal custody of their two (2) children with the Defendant as the parent of primary residence and the Plaintiff as the parent of alternate residence. Further, the Order specified that the parties would continue to work out a mutually agreeable parenting time schedule that was consistent with their daily lives but that Plaintiff would have parenting time every other weekend and over nights every Monday and Thursday. Finally, the Order included a term that the parties agreed that if a dispute over parenting time were to arise they shall first attempt to solve the issue through communication with each other, their attorneys, and/or through mediation before litigating the matter. In late 2013, the Defendant decided to move to Holmdel, New Jersey and the Plaintiff objected and filed an application with the court to prevent the move. The Plaintiff argued that pursuant to the Consent Order he enjoyed nearly equal parenting time with the Defendant and if she were to move to Holmdel he would not be able to continue his shared parenting time. The Family Court judge compelled the parties to first attempt to solve the issue outside of court, as per their agreement and directed them to attend mediation. The Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division found that the parties' Consent Order, which was incorporated into their Final Divorce Judgment and Property Settlement Agreement, expressly provided for dispute resolution, including mediation, before either party resorts to litigation. Further, marital settlement agreements and their like are "favored by the courts as a peaceful means of terminating marital strife and discord so long as they are not against public policy." Dolce v. Dolce, 383 N.J. Super. 11, 20 (App. Div. 2006); Weishaus, Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 143-44 (2004). In this case, the Appellate Court found that the Family Court judge was correct to enforce to parties' mutually agreed upon dispute resolution agreement, as mediation has proven to be successful in the past for parties with similar disputes. Finally, the Appellate Court added that "should mediation prove unsuccessful, nothing in the trial court's order precludes either party from promptly returning to court to adjudicate their dispute." Child custody and child relocation cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for to modify your custody arrangement or to deal with your child relocation issue it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about custody and visitation, child relocation, parenting time, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.