Jimenez v. Jimenez
185 A.3d 954
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- In Oct. 2006 Raul and Gwyn Jimenez acquired a ~30-acre Mansfield, NJ parcel as tenants by the entirety; it was not their marital residence.
- Plaintiffs (Luis, Raul A., Lirio Jimenez) obtained a consent judgment against Raul (not Gwyn) for $225,000 in Feb. 2014; judgment was recorded.
- Plaintiffs attempted collection from Raul’s businesses, bank accounts, and Pennsylvania real estate but recovered nothing.
- Plaintiffs moved (R. 4:59-1(d)) in Nov. 2016 to compel partition and sale of the Mansfield property to satisfy the judgment; Raul opposed, invoking N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4.
- The trial judge denied the motion, concluding § 17.4 bars forced partition of entireties property created after the statute’s effective date; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4 allows a creditor of one spouse to compel partition/sale of real property held as tenancy by the entirety | Plaintiffs argued pre-statute case law (e.g., Newman) allowed equitable partition to reach a debtor spouse's interest and that equitable factors here justify partition | Raul argued § 17.4 prohibits either spouse from severing or alienating entireties interests during marriage without both spouses' written consent, so a creditor cannot force partition | Court held § 46:3-17.4 precludes non-consensual forced partition by a creditor of one spouse for tenancies created after the statute's effective date |
| Whether equitable exceptions (Newman-style) survive § 17.4 | Plaintiffs relied on equitable discretion recognized in Newman to obtain partition despite statutory language | Raul argued the Legislature intended to override that equitable remedy by broadly protecting entireties interests | Court held the statute supersedes the prior equitable remedy; equitable partition is not available against entireties property created after statute’s effective date |
| Whether a creditor can attack an entireties transfer as fraudulent to obtain relief | Plaintiffs did not allege fraudulent conveyance but sought partition instead | Raul noted no fraud claim; § 17.4 does not prevent fraudulent-conveyance laws from applying | Court reiterated that fraudulent conveyance claims (N.J.S.A. 25:2-1 et seq.) remain available and could permit relief if alleged |
| Whether the decision affects divorce/marital-asset sales | Plaintiffs suggested creditor remedy might be analogous to divorce-ordered sales | Raul distinguished enforcement by a creditor from family-law authority to divide/sell in divorce | Court clarified its holding does not affect a court’s power in divorce proceedings to order sale of entireties property under appropriate statutes/case law |
Key Cases Cited
- Freda v. Commercial Tr. Co., 118 N.J. 36 (1990) (discusses statute's effective date and its inapplicability to tenancies created before that date)
- Newman v. Chase, 70 N.J. 254 (1976) (recognized creditors may reach a debtor's interest in entireties property but left partition to equitable discretion)
- N.T.B. v. D.D.B., 442 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2015) (describes characteristics and protections of tenancies by the entirety)
- Capital Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 389 N.J. Super. 219 (Ch. Div. 2006) (discusses execution on right of survivorship and prohibition on involuntary partition during marriage)
- Randazzo v. Randazzo, 184 N.J. 101 (2005) (distinguishes family-law authority to sell marital assets in divorce from creditor enforcement actions)