All too often people make the decision to represent themselves in divorce proceedings.\u00a0 In doing so, the litigant runs the risks of entering into agreements or having decisions made without a full understanding of the law.\u00a0 The case referenced below highlights just one of the pitfalls that a pro se litigant can face.\u00a0 I frequently have potential clients come to me after they entered into a consent order and then develop “buyer’s remorse”.\u00a0 This case demonstrates the a court will not take a request to modify or rescind a consent order lightly.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
FAMILY LAW<\/strong> 20-2-0921 Briseno v. Burton, <\/em>App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) In this unopposed appeal, defendant appeals the Family Part order that confirmed a consent order that permitted plaintiff to relocate to Florida with the parties’ children. Defendant seeks to invalidate the consent order on the bases that he signed it while under duress, threats, and coercion; that he was not represented by counsel; and that under Rule 4:50-1(f), if the agreement was upheld, the result would be unjust, oppressive, and inequitable. The appellate panel finds his arguments unpersuasive. Defendant was well aware of plaintiff’s desire to relocate, he had the proposed agreement for weeks, and he participated in modifying the language. Furthermore, defendant had ample time to consult an attorney. The panel concludes that the trial court’s finding that defendant\u2019s decision to sign the consent agreement was his own decision and was not made under duress is amply supported by the record. Also, this case presents no such exceptional circumstances. The fact that defendant now believes that the terms of the agreement are unfavorable to him does not warrant invalidation of the consent order. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" All too often people make the decision to represent themselves in divorce proceedings.\u00a0 In doing so, the litigant runs the risks of entering into agreements or having decisions made without a full understanding of the law.\u00a0 The case referenced below … Continue reading