Equitable Distribution Of Home Is Open For Argument After Ambiguous PSA

In the recent Appellate Division case, Paintsil v. Oppong-manu, a post-judgment matrimonial case, the Defendant ex-husband appealed from a 2012 Family Court Order which enforced a property settlement agreement (PSA) with regard to the Plaintiff ex-wife's right to receive $22,672.50 as a share of the equitable distribution of their former marital home because he argued the provisions of their PSA were ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. The parties in this case were marred in 1991 and obtained a divorce in 2008. They had two (2) children born in 1993 and 1997 respectively. On the date that their judgment of divorce was issued they entered into a PSA which designated the Defendant as the parent of primary residence and upon which the Defendant waived child support in exchange for the Plaintiff's waiver of alimony. Further, a provision of the PSA specifically directed that both parties are entitled to 50% of the equity of the marital residence and the "Husband agrees to [buy out] Wife's portion of the residence" if this was not possible then the house was to be sold and the proceeds to be split evenly. Specifically, the parties agreed that the fair market value of the marital home was $435,000 with a principal mortgage of $339,655 and an equity line of credit of $80,000. Therefore, at the time the equity in the home totaled $15,345 and subsequently the Plaintiff was entitled to $7,672.50. From the $80,000 home equity line of credit the parties used $30,000 on improvements and the Plaintiff received $10,000 which resulted in $40,000 that remained. According to the PSA, the Plaintiff was entitled to 50% less the $10,000 advance that she received and should have received another $15,000 additionally from the home equity line of credit. In total, the Plaintiff then was entitled to $22,672.50 from the marital home. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to enforce litigant's rights to force the Defendant to pay her the money she was owed under the PSA. The Defendant argued that he could not refinance the home and the value of the home had dropped significantly since the divorce and that the PSA contemplated such an event allowing for modifications to the payouts. The judge found the Defendant was in violation of litigant's rights and ordered him to pay the Plaintiff $22,672.50 plus interest within thirty (30) days of the Order without holding a plenary hearing to evaluate the language of the PSA. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Court, "[I]t is a basic rule of contractual interpretation that a court must discern and implement the common intention of the parties.: Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258, 266 (2007). If the meaning of a contract such as a PSA is in dispute the court role is to consider "what is written in the context of the circumstances at the time of drafting and to apply a rational meaning in keeping with the 'expressed general purpose'." Atl. N. Airlines, Inc. v. Schwimmer, 12 N.J. 293, 302 (1953). In applying these principals the Appellate Division found that the trial court mistakenly exercised its discretion by finding that the Plaintiff was entitled to the enforcement of the PSA because more than one reasonable interpretation of the provisions was presented to the court, requiring a further plenary hearing that did not occur. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the case back for further findings. 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.

Post-Judgment Modification Of Alimony Denied Upon Lack Of Changed Circumstances

In the recent Appellate Division case, Stratthaus v. Stratthaus, the Plaintiff, Gerard Stratthaus appealed from 2013 Family Court Orders which denied his request for a post-judgment modification of his alimony obligation and a reduction in the amount of life insurance he had to take out for the benefit of his ex-spouse. The Plaintiff argued that the court was wrong to deny him the relief that he sought, specifically, 1) a decrease in his alimony payments, 2) a reduction in his obligation to obtain a $150,000 life insurance policy, 3) a reversal of the requirement that he have to name his wife as both the beneficiary and owner of his life insurance policy, 4) and awarding his ex-wife, Defendant, Mary Stratthaus, half of the gross accounts receivable from his business. The Defendant did not file a response to the Plaintiff's Motion. The parties in this case obtained a divorce in 2008 following a thirty-five (35) year marriage. The Defendant gave birth to three children during their marriage, two of which were emancipated at the time of their divorce and one was still attending college. The parties incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) into the Final Judgment of Divorce which stipulated that the Plaintiff was to pay $3,500 a month in permanent alimony which was to be satisfied from the Plaintiff's half of the sale of his business. The parties agreed at that that in 2011 they would revisit the issue of alimony and could modify the amount if circumstances had changed. The PSA also obligated the Plaintiff to maintain a $150,000 life insurance policy for as long as he was required to pay child support and alimony. The Family Court judge who heard the parties' Motions found that the Defendant's actual wages were higher than when the Plaintiff filed his Cross-Motion seeking a reduction than when the obligation was set, therefore, she denied his application without making the Defendant file financial information again and concluded that the Plaintiff did not establish a change in circumstances warranting a modification of his obligation. The Appellate Division held that "The basic contractual nature of matrimonial agreements has long been recognized." Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258, 265 (2007). "Matrimonial agreements between spouses relating to alimony . . . , which are fair and just, fall within the category of contracts enforceable in equity." Peterson v. Peterson, 85 N.J. 638, 642 (1981). The court further notes that when a party to a comprehensive and mutually negotiated PSA seeks to modify any support obligation, that party must meet the threshold of changed circumstances. J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305, 327 (2013). According to the Appellate Court, the language in the parties' PSA does not guarantee a modification, it only notes that the parties had the right to seek a modification from the court at a specific time. The court agreed with the Family Court that the Plaintiff had not established a legitimate reduction in his earnings to constitute a changed circumstance. In addition, with regard to the Plaintiff's obligation to take out a life insurance policy in the amount of $150,000, it appeared to the court that the Plaintiff already owned a policy for $75,000 that was provided by his employer and according to the court it did not seem reasonable to compel him to purchase an additional $75,000 policy if he current coverage was available through his employer at no cost. Therefore, as long as the Defendant remains named as the beneficiary for the policy, the Plaintiff does not have to purchase another policy. In all, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court except for the part of the order dealing with the insurance policy. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony obligation or any other court mandated legal obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, alimony, divorce, child support, 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 of an attorney.