Modification Marital Setlement Agreement

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

The Appellate Division determined that the Motion Court’s resort to the Settlement Discussions was proper so as to determine that the items included in the Divorce were/were not intended to be items included as part of the Divorce.

The court did not use the evidence of prior proposed settlements to prove liability or amount of a disputed claim, but rather to rebut the allegation of a mutual mistake.

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 – 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 . . .

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

The Appellate Division held that the parties SETLED their case by executing a mere Memorandum of Understanding.

With the case listed for trial in June 2014 and economic mediation having failed, the parties agreed to participate in the Intensive Settlement Program (ISP). A retired Superior Court judge conducted three days of negotiations with the parties in February 2014, during which they both were represented by counsel.
Read more . . .

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

The Appellate Division affirmed the Divorce where Defendant consented to the Divorce and the Divorce Agreement (after having Defendant’s Pleadings were stricken for Discovery violations).

The Appellate Division rejected Husband’s contention that contended he entered the settlement agreement under duress, because the answer was stricken in error, the court had threatened him with incarceration, his lawyer was unprepared and  the agreement should be set aside because it is unconscionable. Consent judgments are not appealable. Nor are interlocutory orders entered prior to a consent judgment, unless parties reserve the right to appeal by providing that the judgment would be vacated if the interlocutory order were reversed.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – DiMaggio vDimaggio. (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division Denied an Appeal of  a trial court's order confirming an arbitrator's award issued pursuant to the Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA). Having considered the arguments, the Appellate Division discerned no reason for departing from the statutory prohibition of further appeals following a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award.

Generally, an appeal of a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration decision is barred by N.J.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Schmidt v. Schmidt - (an "Unreported Decision") >> 

 the Court Held:

The Court accepted that after a failed Reconciliation the matter may exist without the submission of a new Filing Fee.

The court determined that an exceptional circumstance existed (the prior case was dismissed relatively recently and for the express reason as the parties’ voluntary attempt to save the marriage). The policy of encouraging mutual efforts at attempted reconciliation was important enough to reinstate the matter and defendant being provided additional time to answer the complaint.

In a  Decision – Thieme v. Thieme- (a "Reported Decision" – New Jersey Supreme Court) >>   the Court Held:

The New Jersey law authorizes the equitable distribution of Husband’s Closing Bonus only to the extent that the compensation was earned during the parties’ marriage. However, in this particular case, under the extraordinary circumstances presented, the New Jersey Supreme Court authorized the imposition of a constructive trust as a remedy for the Wife’s claim of unjust enrichment and that the Wife is entitled to a percentage of the portion of the Closing Bonus earned during the parties’ cohabitation

The couple’s relationship was volatile from its inception The parties filed for divorce after a 14 month marriage. The parties married in 2010 and began to cohabitate in 2003. In April 2012, the parties executed their Divorce Agreement.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Bikoff v. Bikoff - (an "Unreported Decision") >> 

 the Court Held:

The Court accepted the parties determination to utilize a 1994 ‘cut-off’ date for a 2009 Divorce.

In January 1994, plaintiff filed her first complaint for divorce. In April 1995, the parties entered into a consent order that required defendant to pay plaintiff $8000 per month in pendente lite support. However, in November 1995, the parties voluntarily dismissed the divorce action.
Read more . . .

In a  Decision – Puerta v. Puerta- (an "Unreported Decision") >> 

 the Court Held:

The Court GRANTED an AFTER the Divorce award of Equitable distribution when a default occurred and the titled spouse essentially did not offer the marital residence for Equitable distribution relying simply upon the ownership of the House remaining in such titled spouse’s name.

Under the Court Rules, a plaintiff seeking equitable distribution generally first must file and serve a Notice of Final Judgment under Rule 5:5-10. However, a plaintiff whose name is already on the house could eliminate any equitable distribution interest his or her spouse has in the home by simply avoiding a claim for such relief at the time of divorce. Here, defendant, who defaulted in the divorce proceeding, would end up with the entire equity in the marital property without ever even asking for same.
Read more . . .

Courthouse