Enforcing a Written Divorce Agreement

One of the issues to resolve in a divorce cases is the allocation of the dependency exemptions. While the IRS says that they should go to the custodial parent, by and large, states, including New Jersey feel that they can allocate the exemptions between parents and there is case law to that affect.

25906982_s

In most

In an interesting unreported opinion in the case of Tiger v. Tiger released on April 21, 2010, the Appellate Division affirmed an Order enforcing a Property Settlement Agreement and post-judgment Consent Order and denying the husband’s request for an ability to pay hearing regarding alimony and the remainder of his equitable distribution obligation.

After a 35 year marriage, the parties were divorced in 2005 and the husband was required to pay short term alimony and $150,000 in equitable distribution over 4 years.  The husband failed to pay his 2007 and 2008 obligations but never filed a motion seeking modification.  The wife, however, filed an enforcement motion in 2007 and the husband was ordered to pay the $40,000 owed.  The husband filed a motion for reconsideration wherein his alimony was reduced from $70,000 to $50,000 and he was granted more time to pay his equitable distribution payment.  He then failed to pay his 2008 equitable distribution payment and another enforcement motion ensued.  A plenary hearing was ordered as a result but the hearing never happened because the parties entered into a Consent Order wherein the husband agreed not to seek to modify the equitable distribution again and not to seek to modify the alimony before 1/1/10. Not surprisingly, he failed to comply and another enforcement motion was filed in late 2008. The husband used the economic situation in the real estate industry as a reason for his non-compliance.  The trial court denied his motion finding that the husband was a sophisticated business man who entered into the consent order will full knowledge of the economic situation in the real estate industry.  The appeal ensued.


Continue Reading

Oftentimes parties will sign an agreement settling all issues in their divorce matter only for one party to subsequently try to back away from those terms for any number of reasons.  Is it just that easy for a party to essentially change its mind?  The simple answer is generally no.  New Jersey has a strong

Beware, once a party has entered into a written agreement addressing all marital issues, it is very difficult for either party to be relieved of an obligation required by the agreement especially if the agreement was incorporated into a Final Judgment of Divorce.   It is quite common for litigants to state that they wanted to get the divorce “over with” because the other side made life “unbearable” and as such were “pressured into” signing on the dotted line. However, these types of situations do not necessarily form the basis for a Court to hold written agreements unenforceable. I am writing this Blog because yet another person has asked me why I think it is unwise to purchase a “do-it-yourself-divorce kit”. I am told that these divorce kits contain all the forms necessary to proceed with a divorce. What the kits don’t tell you is that if you proceed with a divorce and you incorporate a written agreement that you and your spouse entered without the benefit of legal advise, if it turns out that the agreement is unfair based upon information that you later find or that you find the agreement unfair only after you effectuate the terms of the agreement, you may find yourself stuck with the agreement. Therefore, to avoid being sorry later on, it is imperative that you do not enter into any written agreement simply for the sake of “getting the divorce done” and without thoroughly reviewing your situation with an attorney. 

It is important to note that New Jersey has a strong policy favoring enforcement of agreements. “Property Settlement Agreements” are used as vehicles to efficiently and expeditiously resolve divorce litigation. The Courts encourage parties to enter into agreements to resolve the personal issues created by divorce including custody, visitation, alimony, child support and equitable distribution. Moreover, marital agreements allow the parties to resolve these personal issues in such a way that best fits each party and the children’s needs. The parties also have the ability to assume certain obligations that they otherwise would not have if the Court were to conduct a trial and render a ruling. In other words, in negotiating agreements, the parties are not bound by what the Court can or can not do if the matter were to go to trial so long as the agreement is entered voluntarily and fairly.Accordingly, Property Settlement Agreements that have been knowingly and voluntarily executed by divorcing spouses are entitled to considerable weight with respect to their validity and enforceability such that a presumption of validity is present. Although such agreements can be avoided on grounds of fraud, duress or unconscionability, the party challenging the agreement bears the burden of demonstrating that the agreement is unfair and inequitable. Furthermore, a Property Settlement Agreement that is incorporated into a final judgment of divorce may be set aside pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:50-1, Grounds of Motion for Relief from Judgment, among other reasons, if there was fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the adverse party.


Continue Reading