Only Fair and Equitable Agreements are Enforceable

The reasonableness and fairness of a Matrimonial or Property Settlement Agreement is often overlooked when determining whether it should be enforced.  An often favored concept by our court’s is its reliance on Peterson v. Peterson, 85 N.J. 638 (1981) and Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350 (1977), which say that settlement agreements, because of their voluntary and consensual nature are entitled to “considerable weight” and should not be “unnecessarily or lightly disturbed.”  But, that only applies IF that agreement is fair/just and equitable.   This is a notation that existed well before the seminal case of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) or the above cited cases.

A 1960 Supreme Court told us in no uncertain terms, a settlement agreement is a contract, and is only enforceable “to the extent that they are just and equitable”.  Schlemm v. Schlemm, 31 N.J. 557 (1960).  While there is a strong public policy in favor of maintaining stability of settlements in matrimonial matters (Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999)) that policy must be tempered by the requirement that only those agreements that are “fair and just” shall be enforced.

To enforce an agreement simply because the word “Agreement” is written atop does a disservice to the entire Court system and trivializes our Judges’ roles in the process, who are not on the bench simply to rubber stamp such documents.  If one party challenges the validity of an agreement, a court must undertake to determine whether it remains fair and equitable.  If not, it should not be enforced. 

Want to visit Hunnell Law?