A divorce is finalized when the parties enter into a comprehensive written settlement agreement. Once this has been completed, all that remains is for the court to issue a Final Judgment of Divorce. This is the court order that dissolves the marriage and makes the settlement agreement a binding and enforceable agreement. Getting to the point in time where there is a final agreement to be reviewed and signed can be a long, painstaking process. Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, many litigants (and even some attorneys) will give the final document cursory review prior to signing believing they understand the terms set forth in the agreement and that everyone shares their interpretation. As the blurb below illustrates, such an approach can lead to confusion and unmet expectations.
The terms of your divorce settlement are important and can have long term implications. There may have been multiple drafts and counterproposals circulated. The language may be foreign to you and appear to be “legalese”. Given all of that, take the time to carefully review your agreement prior to signing it. Ask you attorney ANY questions you may have and express any concerns you may have. Failing to do so may prevent you from correcting the issue later.
FAMILY LAW 20-2-6682 Sercia v. Sercia, App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Defendant appealed from a post-judgment matrimonial order denying her motion for payment of supplemental alimony from plaintiff’s annual bonus income. The appellate panel affirmed, finding the language used in the parties Property Settlement Agreement is unambiguous. After identifying the bonus, the timing of its receipt, and quantifying defendant’s interest as one-third of the net cash earned, the limitation provision allows supplemental alimony only when the $100,000 threshold is met. The meaning is not subject to more than one interpretation. The panel rejected defendant’s position that a clarification provision revealed her entitlement to a portion of all bonus income, up to $100,000. The sentence at issue, although awkwardly worded, is not inconsistent with the limitation provision or the motion judges’ conclusions. The clarification provision limits defendant’s one-third interest in one-hundred thousand dollars “earned as a cash bonus.” Thus, her claim that she would not receive supplemental alimony if the total bonus exceeded $100,000 is not tenable, as she would still receive her share of the defined portion of the cash bonus. Although defendant’s position logically could have been what the parties’ intended, she offers no evidence to contradict the express language of the PSA to support her assertion it was drafted in error
