Marital Settlement Agrement

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

 the Court Held:

The Appellate Division agreed with the Trial Court that at the time of the Divorce the sworn testimony of plaintiff herself, made during questioning of the parties during the uncontested divorce hearing, denying the existence of any "side deals" between her and defendant and acknowledging that she understood the terms of the Agreement and intended to be bound by the Marital Agreement. Moreover, the Wife’s certification in support of the Motion includes statements that her attorney cautioned her about accepting the terms of the Agreement, and that, in her lawyer's opinion, it was a "bad deal." She rejected that information and executed the Agreement establishing she agreed to those terms of her own volition, thus undercutting the argument that the Agreement was the product of duress.

The Appellate Division rejected the one (1) year later argument of the Wife that the Marital Agreement should be rejected because of fraud, detrimental reliance, equitable estoppel, and also asserted that the Agreement was a contract of adhesion.

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

The marital settlement agreement enunciated the procedure required to modify custodial provisions. According to the marital settlement agreement, "[the parties] will attempt to resolve [custodial provision disputes] through personal discussion and mediation, if agreed upon at that time or otherwise by way of motion to the court." As an initial matter, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that modification of his vacation and parenting time falls outside the purview of "custodial provisions."