NANCY L. THOMPSON VS. JOHN P. THOMPSONÂ Â (FM-14-450-12, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1779-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Parties married 1987, divorced 2013; a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) was finalized January 16, 2014 allocating retirement assets equally, including a Local 197 annuity.
- Plaintiff later claimed she first learned in May 2014 that defendant had cashed out the Local 197 annuity in May 2010 (while married) and alleged forgery of her signature on the withdrawal form; she asserted the gross proceeds were about $52,805.81 (net ≈ $41,994.65).
- Defendant maintained plaintiff knew of the withdrawal during the marriage and that the funds were used for marital expenses; he also alleged plaintiff removed ~$50,000 from a joint account during the marriage.
- On October 30, 2014, parties entered a consent order resolving many disputed credits and transfers; paragraph 9 contained a catch-all: "any financial credits outstanding due one to the other have been resolved to their satisfaction as set forth herein." The order did not specifically reference the annuity.
- Plaintiff later moved (in 2015) to compel defendant to pay her one-half of the proceeds of the Local 197 annuity; defendant argued the consent order already resolved that claim by offset against his claim for funds plaintiff removed.
- The Family Part ordered defendant to pay plaintiff one-half the annuity proceeds and denied reconsideration; the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a plenary hearing because the parties presented sharply conflicting factual accounts about the consent order’s scope and related facts (e.g., forged signature, negotiation intent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to half of the Local 197 annuity proceeds | Thompson: annuity was cashed out in 2010 during marriage and she never received her 50% share; consent order did not resolve it | Thompson: parties resolved annuity claim by offset in the October 30, 2014 consent order’s catch-all paragraph | Appellate Division: factual dispute over consent order interpretation and surrounding circumstances requires plenary hearing; reversal and remand |
| Whether the trial court could resolve the dispute on conflicting certifications without live testimony | Thompson: court’s order was proper based on filings and PSA provisions | Thompson: resolution required plenary hearing because certifications conflict and credibility matters | Held: plenary hearing required when credibility and extrinsic evidence are necessary to interpret the agreement |
| Whether paragraph 9 of the consent order unambiguously disposed of annuity claim | Thompson: consent order did not specifically mention annuity and thus did not dispose of it | Thompson: catch-all resolved outstanding financial credits including annuity by mutual offset | Held: paragraph 9’s meaning is disputed and ambiguous in material respects — extrinsic evidence and testimony needed |
| Whether attorney fees awarded with reconsideration denial were appropriate | Thompson: not addressed in detail on appeal — fees followed court’s ruling | Thompson: fee award tied to order that must be reconsidered after plenary hearing | Held: fee award reversed without prejudice pending remand outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to Family Part findings on factual issues)
- MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240 (2007) (standard for upholding factual findings: adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
- Conway v. 287 Corporate Ctr. Assocs., 187 N.J. 259 (2006) (extrinsic evidence admissible to interpret ambiguous integrated agreements)
- Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258 (2007) (contract interpretation seeks parties’ intent)
- Whitfield v. Whitfield, 315 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1998) (contested factual issues and credibility require plenary hearing)
- State v. Pyatt, 316 N.J. Super. 46 (App. Div. 1998) (courts should not decide contested facts on conflicting affidavits alone)