In case you don't have Pressler and want to follow John's good advice, copy of the annotations for family actions under Rule 4:50-1:
6. Specific Judgments and Orders.
6.1. Family actions. As a general matter, judgments and orders in family actions are covered by this rule. See generally [more authority]<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/goto_page_paragraph.cfm?book_code="1&curr_page=1906&research_mode=1#HIDDEN1"> Castriota v. Castriota, 268 N.J. Super. 417<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002680000417a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=3&curr_spara=0">, 422<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02002680000417a#P422"> (App. Div. 1993); Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J. Super. 215<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02003680000215a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=3&curr_spara=0">, 222<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02003680000215a#P222"> (App. Div. 2004).
Adoption. See Fall & Romanowski, Current N.J. Family Law, Relationships Involving Children (GANN) at 6:4-8<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_cross_ref.cfm?c_book_code="39&c_group_code=48&c_ref_no=16!14!18&h_ref_no=16!14!18&book_code=1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&curr_page=1906&curr_para=4&curr_spara=0"> and Comment 2 on R. 5:10-12<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_cross_ref.cfm?c_book_code="1&c_group_code=3&c_ref_no=15!210!212&h_ref_no=15!210!212&book_code=1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&curr_page=1906&curr_para=4&curr_spara=0">.Divorce. A judgment of divorce may be reopened under this rule to permit a party to make an unopposed application for its amendment to permit her to resume her maiden name even if that issue had been previously omitted. Olevich v. Olevich, 258 N.J. Super. 344<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002580000344a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=5&curr_spara=0"> (Ch. Div. 1992).
Equitable distribution. Applications for relief from equitable distribution provisions contained in a judgment of divorce and property settlement agreements are subject to this rule and not, as in the case of alimony, support, custody, and other matters of continuing jurisdiction of the court, subject to a "changed circumstances" standard. Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=01001600000408a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 418<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="01001600000408a#P418"> (1999); [more authority]<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/goto_page_paragraph.cfm?book_code="1&curr_page=1906&research_mode=1#HIDDEN2"> Moore v. Moore, 376 N.J. Super. 246<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02003760000246a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 251<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02003760000246a#P251"> (App. Div.), certif. den. 185 N.J. 37 (2005). And see Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002530000531a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 541<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02002530000531a#P541"> (App. Div. 1992)(judgment incorporating an agreement may be set aside when the agreement results from fraud or overreaching by a party having the power to take advantage of a confidential relationship); Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002810000039a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 48<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02002810000039a#P48"> (App. Div.), certif. den. 142 N.J. 455 (1995) (enforcement of agreement must be shown to be "unjust, oppressive or inequitable."); Peskin v. Peskin, 271 N.J. Super. 261<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002710000261a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0"> (App. Div.), certif. den. 137 N.J. 165 (1994)(setting aside a judgment of divorce incorporating a property settlement agreement because of a party's improper coercion, by the judge among others, to enter into it); N.H. v. H.H., 418 N.J. Super. 262<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02004180000262a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 282<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02004180000262a#P282">, 284<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02004180000262a#P284"> (App. Div. 2011) (upholding determination that financial terms of marital settlement agreement were binding as there was nothing to support wife's contention that it was unfair and inequitable because of lack of due diligence). But see Gordon v. Rozenwald, 380 N.J. Super. 55<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02003800000055a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 79<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02003800000055a#P79"> (App. Div. 2005)(insurance policy on obligor's life cannot be transferred fifteen years after divorce judgment without meeting criteria of the rule). The state court does not, however, have the jurisdiction to reconsider equitable distribution issues resolved by the bankruptcy court. Reid v. Reid, 310 N.J. Super. 12<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02003100000012a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=6&curr_spara=0">, 17<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?case_cite="02003100000012a#P17">-20 (App. Div.), certif. den. 154 N.J. 608 (1998).
Relief from an attorney's fee award in a family action is subject to this rule. Inserra v. Inserra, 260 N.J. Super. 71<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002600000071a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=7&curr_spara=0"> (App. Div. 1992).
Where relief is sought from an alimony obligation that includes an equitable distribution component, the judge must determine which portion of the payment represents alimony and which equitable distribution and must then apply the appropriate standard for relief to each component. Connor v. Connor, 254 N.J. Super. 591<http:
www.gannlaw.com/onlineapp/researchtools/main/link_case_cite.cfm?book_code="1&group_code=3&m_page=1906&m_page_ord=1&category=CCOM&case_cite=02002540000591a&curr_page=1906&curr_para=8&curr_spara=0"> (App. Div. 1992).
[cid:
[email protected]]
Mark F. Saker, Esquire
Attorney ID #271831971
______________________________
[cid:
[email protected]]
Please reply to:
819 Route 33
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Monmouth Executive Center
4 Paragon Way, Suite 100
Freehold, NJ, 07728
[cid:
[email protected]]
[email protected]<mailto:
[email protected]>
[cid:
[email protected]]Main: 732-414-0300
[cid:
[email protected]]Direct: 732-431-5000 x 125
[cid:
[email protected]]Fax: 732-462-0483
[cid:
[email protected]] Cell: 732-915-5190
W
www.lomurrolaw.com<http: www.lomurrolaw.com/="">
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E‑MAIL TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY INDICATED TO BE THE RECIPIENT. IF THE RECEIVER OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM WITHOUT COPYING OR FORWARDING IT, AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY REPLY E‑MAIL. THANK YOU!
P Consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Please print this e-mail only if necessary.
Original Message------
Hi All -
Can anyone point me in the direction of case law on 4:50-1 applications dealing with a person who was a severe alcohol and drug abuser during divorce proceedings, and was also unrepresented. The the MSA provides for non-modifiable alimony and child support, and also contains a provision that says neither party may argue that the agreement is against public policy.
------------------------------
Andrew Fischer Esq.
Freehold, NJ
(732) 865-6653
------------------------------
</http:></mailto:[email protected]></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>