ALI SHAHEED JONES-MUHAMMAD VS. KRISTINE OTTÂ (FM-07-1350-11, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3207-15T1

Background

Ali Shaheed Jones‑Muhammad and Kristine Ott divorced in 2013; their Judgment of Divorce incorporated a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) granting Ott the marital residence free of Jones‑Muhammad’s interest and a hold‑harmless indemnity for his tax liabilities.
The MSA treated the residence as worth $300,000, with a $230,000 Chase mortgage and approximately $70,000 equity; plaintiff agreed to assume sole responsibility for his income tax liabilities.
Plaintiff obtained a loan modification after divorce that increased principal; he did not timely provide lender information or mortgage documentation to defendant despite repeated requests.
In 2015 a title search revealed federal tax liens encumbering the home, defeating a $384,000 sale contract; defendant moved to enforce the MSA and for relief.
The court ordered plaintiff to retake title, pay defendant $75,000 (structured as fifteen monthly $5,000 payments) to compensate for the lost sale, and awarded defendant $10,000 in counsel fees.
On appeal plaintiff conceded liability and the $75,000 amount but argued the court failed to consider his ability to pay at the ordered rate; he also challenged the counsel‑fee award because no detailed affidavit of services supported the fee and it exceeded fees actually charged.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly enforced the MSA by awarding defendant damages for the lost sale and ordering plaintiff to retake title/pay damages	Jones‑Muhammad conceded liability and the amount; argued only that the court failed to consider his ability to pay at the imposed monthly rate	Ott argued enforcement of the MSA (residence transfer + hold‑harmless) was appropriate and the award reflected defendant’s actual loss from the failed sale	Court affirmed enforcement of the MSA and the $75,000 award (plaintiff conceded liability and amount); appellate court declined to review ability‑to‑pay issue because it was not raised below
Whether plaintiff’s asserted lack of knowledge of tax liens required a plenary hearing before finding bad faith/knowledge	Jones‑Muhammad denied actual knowledge and offered explanations (reliance on managers, loan modification process) — argued a plenary hearing was required	Ott pointed to notices, plaintiff’s dealings with the IRS since 2013, and inferences of knowledge	Appellate court held that on the record plaintiff presented plausible explanations; a plenary hearing was required to resolve the disputed factual issue about knowledge/bad faith, so judge should not simply rely on an explicit finding without further fact‑finding on remand for fees
Whether the trial court adequately considered plaintiff’s ability to pay the installment schedule it set	Jones‑Muhammad argued the judge failed to consider ability to pay and relied on speculation about his income	Ott argued the judge had financial documents and tax returns and that the MSA imposed an unconditional hold‑harmless obligation	Court declined to reach the ability‑to‑pay claim on appeal because Jones‑Muhammad did not raise it in the trial court when he had opportunities to do so
Whether counsel fees awarded to defendant were authorized and supported	Jones‑Muhammad argued the $10,000 fee lacked a certification of services and exceeded the flat fee actually charged, so it was unsupported	Ott sought counsel fees for motions and indicated she would supply a certification of services but did not do so before the award	Court vacated and remanded the attorney‑fee award because the record lacked a detailed certification of services and explanation; fee must be reconsidered with proper documentation and legal analysis

Key Cases Cited

Higgins v. Polk, 14 N.J. 490 (discusses requirement that discretionary judgments be conscientious and legally grounded)
Isko v. Planning Bd. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162 (court may affirm for a different reasoning when record supports the result)
Castriota v. Castriota, 268 N.J. Super. 417 (equitable‑distribution enforcement and limits on post‑judgment modification)
Monte v. Monte, 212 N.J. Super. 557 (appellate obligation to determine whether record contains substantial credible proof)
Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237 (burden on payor to disclose and explain financial inability to perform obligations)
Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (standards for awarding counsel fees and need for articulated basis)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (appellate courts generally decline issues not raised below)
Esposito v. Esposito, 158 N.J. Super. 285 (appellate exercise of original jurisdiction where record adequate)