Are anti-Lepis clauses valid? During the first decade of Lepis litigation from 1980 to 1990, no reported decisions directly addressed the question. Then, from 1990 to the present date, three published opinions have grappled with the issue, and, not surprisingly, reached three different conclusions. As set forth in the following inconclusive trilogy of cases, the answer appears to be yes and no (at the trial level) and maybe (at the appellate level).
A. "As this court finds no public policy to support prohibiting the inclusion of an 'anti-Lepis' clause in a voluntary property settlement agreement, no modification shall be granted." Finckin v. Finckin, 240 N.J. Super. 204(Ch. Div. 1990).
B. "This court respectfully disagrees with the conclusion reached in Finckin, supra, and, for the reasons set forth below, holds that an 'anti-Lepis' clause...is contrary to the public policy of this State...Smith v. Smith, 261 N.J. Super. 198 (Ch. Div. 1992).
C. "There is a conflict between two Chancery Division opinions concerning whether an anti-Lepis clause is enforceable... Smith v. Smith, 261 N.J. Super. 198 (Ch. Div. 1992), Finckin v. Finckin, 240 N.J. Super. 204 (Ch. Div. 1990)... we must give an equivocal answer to the question of whether an anti-Lepis clause is enforceable. It is both yes and no." Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 1993).
------------------------------
Charles Abut Esq.
Hackensack NJ
(201)342-0404
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-29-2015 10:03
From: Larry Raiken
Subject: alimony
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Solo and Small Firm and Family Law .
-------------------------------------------
I am in the process of negotiating a property settlement agreement and the other attorney is insisting on a non-modifiable alimony paragraph. I believe that agreeing to this is tantamount to malpractice. Am I crazy or what.
------------------------------
Larry Raiken Esq.
Montville NJ
(973) 808-2003
------------------------------