NJSBA Family Law Section

FAMILY LAW

20-4-9274 Ashmont v. Ashmont, Chanc. Div.-Family Pt.-Ocean Cnty. (Jones, J.S.C.) (19 pp.) Plaintiff filed a motion in aid of litigant's rights seeking postjudgment relief against defendant, including enforcement of the life insurance provisions in the parties' settlement agreement. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was in breach of the agreement by failing to provide proof that he was maintaining life insurance for the benefit of plaintiff and their children. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendant had actually failed to comply with his life insurance obligation for several years, compromising both her and the children's financial security in the event of defendant's premature death. As a result, plaintiff sought not only enforcement of the life insurance provisions, but also sanctions against defendant. In the course of the litigation, defendant admitted that he had been out of compliance with the life insurance provisions of the settlement agreement for four years. Following receipt of plaintiff's enforcement motion, however, defendant did in fact belatedly bring himself into compliance with his obligations by securing a new life insurance policy, consistent with the terms of the agreement. Notwithstanding defendant's tardy compliance with the settlement agreement, however, plaintiff sought legal and equitable relief against defendant. Additionally, plaintiff requested strict enforcement of the obligation in order to prevent any further lapses in coverage. Implicitly, her concern was that after the litigation concluded, defendant might fall out of compliance with his insurance obligation. Violation of a life insurance provision designed to secure a support obligation might be tantamount to a violation of a support obligation itself. The court found that defendant clearly violated the terms and spirit of the parties' settlement agreement by failing to provide life insurance protecting both his alimony and child support obligations for several years, in violation of court order and plaintiff's rights. There was insufficient evidence that he was unable to obtain a policy, for financial reasons, health reasons or any other reasons. Defendant was out of compliance with his obligation for an unreasonable and sustained length of time, which worked to his own financial advantage and to the improper detriment and risk to both plaintiff and the children. Under the circumstances, the court entered two specific forms of relief including change of ownership of the current policy and financial sanctions.

FAMILY LAW

20-4-9274 Ashmont v. Ashmont, Chanc. Div.-Family Pt.-Ocean Cnty. (Jones, J.S.C.) (19 pp.) Plaintiff filed a motion in aid of litigant's rights seeking postjudgment relief against defendant, including enforcement of the life insurance provisions in the parties' settlement agreement. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was in breach of the agreement by failing to provide proof that he was maintaining life insurance for the benefit of plaintiff and their children. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendant had actually failed to comply with his life insurance obligation for several years, compromising both her and the children's financial security in the event of defendant's premature death. As a result, plaintiff sought not only enforcement of the life insurance provisions, but also sanctions against defendant. In the course of the litigation, defendant admitted that he had been out of compliance with the life insurance provisions of the settlement agreement for four years. Following receipt of plaintiff's enforcement motion, however, defendant did in fact belatedly bring himself into compliance with his obligations by securing a new life insurance policy, consistent with the terms of the agreement. Notwithstanding defendant's tardy compliance with the settlement agreement, however, plaintiff sought legal and equitable relief against defendant. Additionally, plaintiff requested strict enforcement of the obligation in order to prevent any further lapses in coverage. Implicitly, her concern was that after the litigation concluded, defendant might fall out of compliance with his insurance obligation. Violation of a life insurance provision designed to secure a support obligation might be tantamount to a violation of a support obligation itself. The court found that defendant clearly violated the terms and spirit of the parties' settlement agreement by failing to provide life insurance protecting both his alimony and child support obligations for several years, in violation of court order and plaintiff's rights. There was insufficient evidence that he was unable to obtain a policy, for financial reasons, health reasons or any other reasons. Defendant was out of compliance with his obligation for an unreasonable and sustained length of time, which worked to his own financial advantage and to the improper detriment and risk to both plaintiff and the children. Under the circumstances, the court entered two specific forms of relief including change of ownership of the current policy and financial sanctions.

FAMILY LAW

20-4-9274 Ashmont v. Ashmont, Chanc. Div.-Family Pt.-Ocean Cnty. (Jones, J.S.C.) (19 pp.) Plaintiff filed a motion in aid of litigant's rights seeking postjudgment relief against defendant, including enforcement of the life insurance provisions in the parties' settlement agreement. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was in breach of the agreement by failing to provide proof that he was maintaining life insurance for the benefit of plaintiff and their children. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendant had actually failed to comply with his life insurance obligation for several years, compromising both her and the children's financial security in the event of defendant's premature death. As a result, plaintiff sought not only enforcement of the life insurance provisions, but also sanctions against defendant. In the course of the litigation, defendant admitted that he had been out of compliance with the life insurance provisions of the settlement agreement for four years. Following receipt of plaintiff's enforcement motion, however, defendant did in fact belatedly bring himself into compliance with his obligations by securing a new life insurance policy, consistent with the terms of the agreement. Notwithstanding defendant's tardy compliance with the settlement agreement, however, plaintiff sought legal and equitable relief against defendant. Additionally, plaintiff requested strict enforcement of the obligation in order to prevent any further lapses in coverage. Implicitly, her concern was that after the litigation concluded, defendant might fall out of compliance with his insurance obligation. Violation of a life insurance provision designed to secure a support obligation might be tantamount to a violation of a support obligation itself. The court found that defendant clearly violated the terms and spirit of the parties' settlement agreement by failing to provide life insurance protecting both his alimony and child support obligations for several years, in violation of court order and plaintiff's rights. There was insufficient evidence that he was unable to obtain a policy, for financial reasons, health reasons or any other reasons. Defendant was out of compliance with his obligation for an unreasonable and sustained length of time, which worked to his own financial advantage and to the improper detriment and risk to both plaintiff and the children. Under the circumstances, the court entered two specific forms of relief including change of ownership of the current policy and financial sanctions.