NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Need case name

    Posted 01-30-2015 10:52 AM

    I believe there is a case, possibly from the 70s or early 80s, which holds to the effect that in the context of a marital settlement agreement, one spouse should not be permitted to challenge the agreement after she (or he) has already accepted some of the benefits the agreement bestowed on that spouse? I am drawing a blank as to the name.

     

    Any help is appreciated.

    ------------------------------
    Robert Goldstein Esq.
    Manalapan NJ
    (732)972-1600
    ------------------------------



  • 2.  RE: Need case name

    Posted 01-30-2015 10:59 AM

    Brawer v. Brawer, 329 N.J.Super. 273 (App. Div. 2000).   

    Before trial, Ms. Brawer moved to enforce a settlement which she contended the parties had agreed to at the end of a 10 hour settlement conference. The motion was denied and an 8 day bench trial was held to determine whether the parties had reached an enforceable settlement. Following the conclusion of that trial, the trial court ruled that there was no settlement. Reversed on appeal : settlement enforced. Contracting party is bound by the apparent intention outwardly manifested to the other party.



    ------------------------------
    Charles Abut Esq.
    Hackensack NJ
    (201)342-0404
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Need case name

    Posted 01-30-2015 11:04 AM
    Robert:

    With respect to a judgment, there's also Tassie v. Tassie, 140 N.J. Super. 517 (App. Div. 1976).

    Michelle


    Dennigan Cahill Smith, LLC
    Attorneys at Law
    12 Roszel Road, Suite B102
    Princeton, NJ 08540
    Tel: 609-919-1600
    Fax: 609-919-1601

    BY: Michelle A. Newton, Esq.


    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Need case name

    Posted 01-30-2015 03:06 PM
    Tassie v. Tassie<https: www.lexis.com/research/buttontflink?_session="fb216250-a8ba-11e4-932e-f2a073388170.1.1.1389460.+.1.0&wchp=dGLzVzt-zSkAz&_b=0_1963905423&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c!%5BCDATA%5B74%20N.J.%20Eq.%20417%5D%5D%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_lexsee=SHMID&_lnlni=&_butType=3&_butStat=254&_butNum=13&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c!%5BCDATA%5B1976%20N.J.%20Super.%20LEXIS%20943%5D%5D%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&prevCase=Krauss%20v.%20Krauss&prevCite=74%20N.J.%20Eq.%20417&_md5=854ECF694CF5BE20AB2EB106998C2C63">, 140 N.J. Super. 517, 357 A.2d 10, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 943 (App.Div. 1976)


    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Need case name

    Posted 01-31-2015 08:14 AM
    You may also want to look at Simon v. Simon, 148 N.J. Super. 40 (1977).

    ------------------------------
    Stephanie Palo Esq.
    Holmdel, NJ 07733
    (732)837-4544
    ------------------------------


    Original Message