Law Lessons from ZAITSEV v. ZAITSEV, Appellate Division, A-4960-05T1, April 24, 2007:
Absent fraud, coercion, deception, undue pressure, or incompetency, “[a] settlement between parties to a lawsuit is a contract like any other contract . . . which a court . . . should honor and enforce as it does other contracts.” Jennings v. Reed, 381 N.J. Super. 217, 227 (App. Div. 2005).
“Relief by way of motion to enforce litigants’ rights under R. 1:10-3 is ‘not for the purpose of punishment, but as a coercive measure to facilitate the enforcement of [a] court order.’” P.T. v. M.S., 325 N.J. Super. 193, 220 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373, 381 (App. Div. 1997)). Roselin v. Roselin, 208 N.J. Super. 612 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 105 N.J. 550 (1986) held that the appointment of a receiver or entry of recordable judgment were appropriate alternative mechanisms to compel recalcitrant party’s conveyance of marital property.
Once a consent judgment is entered, the court retains the inherent “ability and responsibility . . . to enforce its own orders . . . .” Irish Pub v. Stover, 364 N.J. Super. 351, 356 (App. Div. 2003).
In Glass v. Glass, 366 N.J. Super. 357, 373-74 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 354 (2004), the court held that when interpreting a comprehensive property settlement agreement, “[n]o one element stands alone and can be read without reference or consideration of the others.”
Print This Post
NOTE: My legal services include family law, divorce, child support, litigation, arbitration, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, separation agreements, palimony, PSA, property settlement agreement, premarital and prenuptial agreements, midmarriage and marital agreements.
Technorati Tags: property-settlement-agreement, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.