RONALD HARRIS VS. BERNARDO CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRY, Â(L-5071-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3134-16T1

Background

Ronald Atlak filed for divorce from Marie Fuccilli-Atlak in 2013; they had two children. A settlement was reached at a mandatory pre-trial conference on August 7, 2014 addressing property and custody, but the terms were not placed on the record.
Plaintiff’s counsel drafted a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and sent it to defendant’s counsel; both parties took partial steps consistent with the MSA (home listed for sale; plaintiff paid mortgage arrears).
After a custody dispute, defendant removed the home from the market and requested changes to the proposed MSA; plaintiff moved to enforce the MSA or for a Harrington hearing.
On October 31, 2014 the family court found a binding agreement existed, enforced the MSA, and awarded plaintiff counsel fees; an uncontested hearing was set and a judgment of divorce (JOD) incorporating the MSA was entered on November 17.
Defendant filed a Rule 4:50-1(f) motion (December 15) to vacate the JOD or modify the MSA arguing lack of agreement and seeking numerous amendments; the judge denied relief on February 2, 2015 and awarded additional fees to plaintiff for bad-faith prosecution. Defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence/enforceability of MSA	Atlak: Parties reached a binding settlement at the Aug 7 conference; plaintiff performed and the drafted MSA memorialized the agreement.	Fuccilli-Atlak: No agreed MSA; performance was conditional (claimed condition precedent) and defendant sought material changes after conference.	Court: Binding MSA existed; partial performance and counsel communications supported enforcement; no Harrington hearing required.
Condition precedent to MSA performance	Atlak: No condition precedent; parties' actions show agreement.	Fuccilli-Atlak: Performance was contingent on plaintiff’s future conduct toward children (condition precedent).	Court: No evidence of a condition precedent; defendant’s partial performance (listing home) undermined the claim.
Fraud in the inducement / relief under Rule 4:50-1(c)/(f)	Atlak: No fraud; earlier orders and facts show settlement was voluntary and enforceable.	Fuccilli-Atlak: Asserted fraud in inducement as basis to vacate JOD (raised on appeal).	Court: Fraud argument was not raised below and is deemed abandoned; in any event record did not support fraud.
Relief under Rule 4:50-1(f) to vacate or modify JOD/MSA	Atlak: Denial appropriate; no exceptional circumstances; motion was effectively an untimely reconsideration.	Fuccilli-Atlak: Requested equitable relief to vacate or amend JOD/MSA under catch-all Rule 4:50-1(f).	Court: Denied relief—movant failed to show exceptional circumstances; judge’s discretionary denial was not an abuse.

Key Cases Cited

Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div.) (whether a plenary hearing is required to determine existence of settlement depends on factual record)
Duff v. Trenton Beverage Co., 4 N.J. 595 (1950) (general principles on contractual conditions precedent and parties' intent)
DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242 (2009) (Rule 4:50-1(f) is a catch-all seeking equitable relief in exceptional cases)
Connor v. Connor, 254 N.J. Super. 591 (App. Div.) (party may seek vacation of divorce order incorporating an MSA)
Quagliato v. Bodner, 115 N.J. Super. 133 (App. Div.) (relief under Rule 4:50-1(f) requires showing enforcement would be unjust, oppressive, or inequitable)
Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., L.L.C., 215 N.J. 242 (2013) (discussed by appellee on appeal regarding enforceability and signature formalities)