For some, the whole concept of equitable distribution sounds unfair. This complaint generally comes from individuals who have high paying jobs. Their spouse enjoys the “luxury’ of staying home and with a nanny and housekeeper to attend to the house and children. What’s equitable about distributing income that only one party makes?
Equitable distribution is based on the premise that marriage is a partnership. Some individuals prepare ahead. They may engage a family law attorney to execute a pre-nuptial agreement. We’ve spoken about the benefits of this in a prior article.
The courts encourage parties to come up with property settlement agreements that include the equitable distribution of assets and debts. Nevertheless, it isn’t always possible. In those matters, the court must set a trial date and make a decision on the issues. Is it feasible to undo an equitable distribution award as determined by the court?
Appealing the Case
In New Jersey, appealing a divorce case is not the norm. You can’t just appeal the matter because you don’t like the result. Your attorney must file paperwork with the Appellate Division and cite the issues within forty-five days after the decision. There may be a contention of discretionary abuse. Or, your lawyer may decide that the court’s ruling was not in line with accepted legal principles. Lastly, there may be a concern that the judge did not consider the evidence.
Note well. You can’t just appeal a divorce case because you don’t like the results. It’s not inexpensive to have an upper court take a shot at your case. Almost three-quarters of family law cases brought on appeal are unsuccessful. It might be sensible to take out your calculator before nit-picking about perceived issues that aren’t earth shattering.
Bringing the Matter Back to Court
You may hear the expression that some divorce cases never end. In truth, there’s a potential for all family law cases to continue. The obvious are matters that involve custody and parenting issues . However, that’s not to say that equitable distribution awards can’t require further judicial intervention.
The court recently reviewed a case where one party felt there were still issues from their 2007 divorce. It wasn’t the first time that Yehuda A. Amir appealed the trial court’s equitable distribution award. In fact, it was the third.
By way of background, Yehuda and Debra Amir married in 1991. They divorced in 2007, after an eight-day trial. During one of the appeals, Yehuda questioned the distribution of a business he owned before the marriage. Additionally, the former husband said he did not have the resources to comply with the divorce order. He suggested that his equitable distribution obligation might be reduced by allocating one of his business properties to his ex-wife.
More than likely, Yehuda wasn’t happy with the court’s answer. His application was denied. The trial judge reviewed all the circumstances and determined there was no reason to “redo” the divorce. Not only was the reconsideration denied, but Yehuda was also court-ordered to pay his former spouse $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
This didn’t stop Yehuda from trying again. He proceeded to file another motion to the court regarding the three properties awarded to his ex. He claimed their worth exceeded the amount she was entitled to as far as equitable distribution. The court didn’t find the motion appropriate at time but stated that it would reconsider the issue at a later date. Yehuda was instructed not to interfere with the sale of the property and directed to pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
Was Three Times Really a Charm?
You’ve heard the expression that three times is a charm. Yehuda returned to court for a third time. This time it was to compel Debra to provide the listing agreement for one of the properties. He also wanted his ex to place the proceeds in escrow. Yehuda also asked the court to order a plenary hearing to determine what credits were due him. When the hearing was denied, Yehuda filed still another motion at the trial court level. He was still questioning the division of marital assets.
Get our point? It’s been ten years since the Amirs’s divorce. Nevertheless, their case seems never-ending. Will Yahuda’s persistence ultimately result in a redo of the equitable distribution award?
Only time will tell.
Contact Us
At the Law Offices of Sam Stoia, our goal is to provide our clients with experienced legal advice regarding divorce and post-judgment motions. If you believe an issue regarding equitable distribution should be revisited, contact us. There is no charge for our preliminary meeting.