Nh v. Hh
13 A.3d 399
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- N.H. v. H.H., No. A-4124-09T2, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division; decided Feb. 2, 2011.
- Married in 1991 with seven children (born 1992–1999); H.H. is a lawyer and wife operated an interior design business.
- During marriage, parties attempted reconciliation after hospitalization of Mrs. H. in 2007 and engaged Judge Fall for mediation in 2008.
- February 25, 2009, they executed the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) incorporating a neutral custody evaluator (Dr. Katz) and a joint accounting expert (Gunteski).
- The MSA provided that custody and parenting time would follow Dr. Katz's recommendations and waived further discovery; it also named Judge Fall as mediator and Gunteski as accounting expert.
- Post-MSA, litigation resumed with a divorce complaint filed May 5, 2009; Katz issued a custody report June 9–7, 2009 and a supplement June 12, 2009; Family Part proceedings followed, including three orders on Jan. 15, 2010, and reconsideration on Mar. 5, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MSA’s custody provisions were properly aligned with arbitration-like procedures. | H.H. argues the MSA improperly delegated final custody decisions to a neutral expert. | N.H. contends the MSA created a valid arbitration-like framework under Fawzy/Johnson. | Affirmed; the MSA’s custody provisions satisfied Fawzy/Johnson standards. |
| Whether the MSA’s financial provisions were fair and enforceable given limited discovery. | H.H. claims lack of full discovery rendered the MSA unfair. | N.H. demonstrates comprehensive disclosure and substantial benefits to H.H.; discovery waiver was voluntary. | Affirmed; the financial terms were fair and the waiver acceptable. |
| Whether pipeline retroactivity of Fawzy/Johnson correctly applied to keep the custody issues in casing. | H.H. argues the court misapplied pipeline retroactivity to pre-Fawzy events. | N.H. asserts pipeline retroactivity applies so as not to disturb previously resolved custody orders. | Affirmed; pipeline retroactivity applied properly. |
| Whether Judge Fall’s mediation role violated ethical rules or tainted the process. | H.H. alleges bias due to prior reconciliation work by Judge Fall. | No evidence of mediator impropriety; mediation integrity preserved. | Affirmed; mediation conduct acceptable and not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456 (2009) (arbitration-like procedures in custody disputes; pipeline considerations under Johnson)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 204 N.J. 529 (2010) (arbitration/alternative dispute procedures; pipeline retroactivity acknowledged)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to family-part findings of fact and law)
- Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (settlement of matrimonial disputes and waiver of rights; reliance on mediation)