Divorce Agreement

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 . . .

In a  Decision – M.C. v. P.C.
Read more . . .