In a Decision – Kambitsis v. Kambitsis, (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division reversed the Trial Court and determined that
Husband’s request involved disputed issues of material fact, issues of
fairness and equity had to be considered.
The parties executed a Pre-Marital Agreement that, before the Divorce Trial, the Divorce Court determined to be valid and enforceable. After Trial, the Trial Court, awarded Wife relief in excess of that which was set forth in the Divorce Agreement.
The trial judge followed the terms of the PMA and awarded plaintiff no share of the assets that defendant acquired during the course of this ten-year marriage. Instead, the judge tried to overcome the inherently unconscionable nature of the agreement by amending those provisions which the hearing judge had earlier left undecided. The bottom line following the trial judge's 25 A-0631-17T1 efforts to rectify the drastic, unconscionable financial imbalance between the parties at the time they executed the PMA, and which only increased during the marriage, was a one-time infusion for plaintiff's benefit … more than provided to her under the terms of the PMA. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial judge's efforts were inadequate. The Appellate Division reversed the order that upheld the alimony waiver in the PMA.