ModificationDivorce

In a  Decision – Tirendi v. Tirendi (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate  Division determined that  the Divorce Agreement was enforceable when the Husband, after having his affair discovered, agreed to terms of a Divorce that he later regretted.

Without retaining counsel, Husband signed the Divorce Agreement and consented to entry of a judgment of divorce. Almost fifteen months later, Husband moved to vacate the judgment of divorce and set aside the Divorce Agreement arguing it was a mid-marriage agreement he was fraudulent induced to sign, and was unconscionable, inequitable and unjust. The court denied vacation finding Wife wanted a divorce when the Divorce Agreement was forwarded to Husband, and, although favoring respondent, was enforceable.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Dressner v. Dressner  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The statute prohibits the retroactive modification of a child support obligation to a date prior to the mailing of the notice of motion for such modification. Further, retroactivity is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Following termination from his employment and efforts to obtain comparable employment, the Court  terminated his alimony obligation as of the date of the order and modified the amount of child support in accordance with the child support guidelines. Even though the notice was mailed 19 months prior to the order, the family part court did not violate the statutory provisions by failing to order the obligation modified retroactively nor was there any abuse of discretion in such decision

In a  Decision – Drees v. Drees (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate  Division concluded, it seems, that as to issues as to which the Court did not have the official record present, the determinations of the Court were legally and factually correct.

After extensive negotiations, they reached settlement on all but three issues and the terms of the settlement were placed on the record. Defendant asserted the trial court erred in entering the Divorce Judgment without having resolved certain of  the issues. The Court determined that Divorce Judgment incorporated the retirement account terms that the parties placed on the record and both parties were present at the hearing and were represented by counsel.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Six v Six  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that a Mistake did occur as to the Divorce Agreement’s recital of Distribution of certain assets and that a Mistake did not occur as to the Divorce Agreement’s recital of Distribution of certain assets.

The determination that certain stock was a premarital asset not subject to distribution and a retirement account was calculated twice was correct. The determination that the distribution of jewelry, collectibles, or a retirement account was intended was correct. 

In a  Decision – Lingala v. Alkanti (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate  Division determined that the Divorce Agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily with knowledge of information and that Husband waited too long to challenge the Divorce Agreement especially after numerous Motions were filed in regard to the Divorce Agreement.

 The contested divorce was resolved by a global settlement before trial was completed. The trial court conducted a hearing to determine if the agreement was knowing, voluntary, fair and equitable and granted a dual judgment of divorce and incorporated the terms of the oral agreement into the final judgment of divorce. Two weeks later, plaintiff executed a formal typed version of the Divorce Agreement.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Foley v. Foley (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that because the Divorce Agreement required payments as to the Mortgage to be paid, it did not matter that the Bank’s Class Action Settlement resulted in the forgiveness of the Mortgage.

The Family Part judge denied appellant’s motion finding appellant’s lump sum payment was a “separate obligation” and that Husband failed to comply with the terms of the Divorce Agreement. A. Although the mortgage company’s settlement was unforeseen when the parties executed the agreement, the court affirmed holding Husband’s obligations to continue to pay under the Divorce Agreement terms was a separate and distinct obligation.
Read more . . .