DANIELLE TIRENDI VS. THOMAS J. TIRENDI (FM-10-320-14, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1543-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Parties were married, owned and operated a marketing business, and had three children; plaintiff discovered defendant's affair and hired counsel to draft a marital separation agreement (MSA).
- Counsel sent the MSA to defendant, advising him he could seek independent legal advice; the MSA awarded plaintiff sole legal custody, the marital home, retirement and brokerage accounts, and controlling power over the business; defendant received a car, responsibility for certain debts, and alimony obligations from the business.
- Defendant signed the MSA three days after receiving it without reading it or obtaining counsel; plaintiff filed for divorce and defendant waived answer and consented to entry of a judgment of divorce (JOD) incorporating the MSA.
- The couple continued to live together and operate the business for months after the JOD, but later dated others and defendant moved out; defendant transferred retirement accounts per the MSA.
- Fifteen months after entry of the JOD, defendant moved to vacate the JOD under Rule 4:50-1(c) (fraud) and (f) (other grounds), arguing the MSA was a coerced mid‑marriage agreement, fraudulently induced, unconscionable, and should be set aside; the trial court denied relief and ordered mediation of custody.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding the MSA was enforceable and not a prohibited mid‑marriage agreement, and defendant’s fraud/unconscionability claims failed in light of the record (including defendant’s failure to read or seek counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSA is an unenforceable mid‑marriage agreement | The MSA reflected bona fide intent to end the marriage and negotiate settlement | The MSA was procured as a condition to preserve the marriage after discovery of an affair (coercive mid‑marriage agreement) | MSA not a mid‑marriage agreement; facts show parties intended divorce and negotiated settlement, so enforceable |
| Whether defendant was fraudulently induced or coerced into signing the MSA | Plaintiff denies deceit; counsel advised defendant to seek counsel | Defendant claims plaintiff fraudulently induced him to sign under duress to save the marriage | No credible evidence of fraud, deception, or coercion; defendant admitted he did not read or seek counsel |
| Timeliness of Rule 4:50-1(c) fraud claim | N/A | Filing was within eight months of receiving a gold‑sealed JOD, so timely | Subsection (c) relief must be sought within one year of entry; defendant’s motion was filed 15 months after entry and not saved by gold‑sealed copy receipt; (the court nonetheless considered subsection (f) merits) |
| Whether relief under Rule 4:50-1(f) is warranted for equity/unconscionability | N/A | Exceptional and compelling circumstances make enforcement unjust/inequitable; seek plenary hearing to modify custody/time | Filing under (f) was within a reasonable time but defendant failed to show enforcement would be unjust, oppressive or inequitable; no plenary hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacelli v. Pacelli, 319 N.J. Super. 185 (App. Div.) (discusses unenforceability of mid‑marriage agreements)
- Glass v. Glass, 366 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div.) (standards for enforcing post‑separation settlement agreements)
- Connor v. Connor, 254 N.J. Super. 591 (App. Div.) (Rule 4:50 motion practice to vacate MSAs)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (standards for abuse of discretion review)
- DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242 (interpretation and scope of Rule 4:50-1(f) equitable relief)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (deference to family court factfinding and credibility assessments)