There are relatively few reported decisions in New Jersey that provide guidance with respect to the enforcement of prenuptial agreements. For this reason, each Appellate Division decision relating to prenuptial agreements is a matter of some importance.

   In April, 2007, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a trial judge’s refusal to enforce certain terms of the parties’ New Jersey prenuptial agreement that dealt with contributions by the former husband to his savings plan. The New Jersey divorce judgment provided that the ex-husband's savings plan be subject to equitable distribution, despite language in the parties' New Jersey prenuptial agreement that provided otherwise.

The New Jersey divorce judge found that the husband’s increased contributions to the savings plan during the marriage were not foreseeable at the time the prenuptial agreement was signed. On that basis, the trial judge ruled that the section of the prenuptial agreement relating to ex-husband’s savings plan was unenforceable. Pattison v. Pattison, Jr., New Jersey App. Div., April 6, 2007.

As a matrimonial attorney with fourteen years of experience, I share the view expressed by many of my colleagues that the reduction of hostility in divorce matters will promote the best interests of both the litigants and the courts. Couples who seek judicial intervention to end their marriages do not benefit from artificial barriers designed to slow their divorces or limit their options. I believe that Section 2A:34-2(i) will assist in reducing needless emotional suffering, and increase the ability of the litigants, their attorneys, and the Courts to focus on the important financial, custodial, and other issues that must be resolved.

By: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.,
Divorce Lawyer in New York and New Jersey
http://www.RapaportLaw.com
Providing legal assistance in divorce, custody, support and other family law matters.