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.

Domestic Partner Challenges Equitable Distribution In PSA

In R.R. v. R.N., the Plaintiff appealed from a 2013 Court Order which enforced the parties' property settlement agreement (PSA) and denied the Plaintiff's Motion regarding equitable distribution for leave to sell real property owned by the parties. The parties in this case began a romantic relationship in 1999 and entered into a domestic partnership in 2005. In 2011, the parties entered into an agreement regarding their property. The agreement provided that the parties' real property located in Ocean Grove, New Jersey was converted from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common with two-thirds owned by the Plaintiff and one-third owed by the Defendant. The Defendant possessed the sole right to occupy the property for ten (10) years from the date of the execution of the agreement and was "responsible for all carrying costs" which included utilities, repairs, taxes, and assessments. The agreement provided that the Defendant had the option to purchase the Plaintiff's share at the end of the ten (10) year term. Further, if the Defendant wished to sell his share before the end of the time period, he would have had to offer the share to the Plaintiff for $100,000 and if the Plaintiff did not purchase the share the property it was to be sold by a realtor and the proceeds split between the parties. Shortly after the agreement was signed, the parties' relationship deteriorated in early 2011. Following a trial, the court awarded the Plaintiff with a Final Restraining Order against the Defendant for stalking and harassment. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint to force the partition of the parties' real property. In 2013, a Family Court judge denied the Plaintiff's request to force the sale of the property, holding that the parties had already resolved and agreed upon aspects of the real property in a negotiated agreement. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision arguing that the agreement between the parties was no longer enforceable because of the Defendant's subsequent acts of domestic violence and the institution of a Final Restraining Order making the joint ownership of the property inequitable. According to the Appellate Court, decisions regarding the granting of equitable remedies are left to the discretion of the trial courts and are not disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse or discretion. Feigenbaum v. Guaracini, 402 N.J. Super. 7, 17 (App. Div. 2008). The trial court in this case, found that the parties had carefully crafted and negotiated their agreement and the provisions of the agreement were clear and unambiguous and the Plaintiff had "not shown a basis for abrogating the Agreement and requiring sale of property earlier than required by the Agreement." The settlement of litigation is important to public policy in the state of New Jersey and domestic settlement agreements are enforceable in equity and contract as long as they are not unconscionable, fraudulent or overreaching. Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39, 46 (App. Div. 1995). Therefore the decision of the Family Court was affirmed. The equitable distribution of assets often leaves both parties with great trepidation about their financial futures making it one of the most sensitive aspects of a relationship dissolution. If you are involved in a battle over the division of 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, domestic partnership dissolution, 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.