Lourdy Jordonne v. Lucien Saint Louis

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: July 16, 2024
• Docket: A-3503-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3503-22

LOURDY JORDONNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LUCIEN SAINT LOUIS,

Defendant-Respondent. ________________________

Submitted April 29, 2024 – Decided July 16, 2024

Before Judges Gilson and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FM-20-0516-22.

Robert Brotman, attorney for appellant.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Family Part in this matrimonial

matter: (1) the March 31, 2023 order invalidating the parties' settlement agreement and dismissing their pleadings; and (2) the May 26, 2023 order

denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. We vacate both orders and

remand for further proceedings.

I.

The parties were married in 2008 and have no children together. On

September 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Family Part seeking a

divorce from defendant. After defendant filed an answer and counterclaims, the

parties exchanged discovery requests. Neither party formally responded to those

requests.

Instead, the parties exchanged case information statements, tax returns,

current wage statements, early settlement panel (ESP) case profiles, and an

appraisal of a multi-family house owned by defendant. Although the parties

were unable to reach a settlement in the ESP, they subsequently agreed to

participate in economic mediation.

The mediation resulted in a signed settlement agreement dated November

10, 2022. The agreement provided: (1) defendant will pay lump-sum alimony

of $50,000 in two payments; (2) the funds in the parties' bank accounts as of the

date of the filing of the complaint will be divided equally; (3) the equity in the

house owned by defendant will be divided equally either through a sale or

A-3503-22 2 defendant's purchase of plaintiff's interest within one year. The parties

acknowledged that division of the equity in the house, and payment of a portion

of the lump-sum alimony would likely be delayed pending resolution of an

insurance claim in excess of $200,000 relating to the property.

Prior to mediation, plaintiff's counsel subpoenaed bank records relating to

the couple's accounts. The records for one account were not produced until after

the parties had signed the settlement agreement. According to plaintiff, those

records established that a Wells Fargo account had a balance of $106,134.88 two

days before she filed the complaint. Within a month of service of the complaint,

defendant withdrew $90,000 from the account. He made further withdrawals

from that account and another account in the following months, ultimately

removing more than ninety percent of what had been on deposit just before the

complaint was filed.

On February 5, 2023, plaintiff moved for an order: (1) scheduling a

plenary hearing to address modifying or reforming the settlement agreement to

address defendant's bad faith removal of assets subject to equitable distribution

and alleged fraudulent activity; (2) requiring defendant to restore the funds he

removed from the bank accounts; (3) mandating defendant make the lump-sum

alimony payment immediately; (4) invalidating certain provisions of the

A-3503-22 3 settlement agreement deferring defendant's obligation to make payments; and

(5) scheduling a plenary hearing with respect to the insurance claim.

Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order

incorporating the settlement agreement into a final judgment of divorce (JOD)

or, in the alternative, to hold a hearing to determine whether the agreement

should be invalidated.

On March 31, 2023, the family court issued an oral opinion denying the

parties' motions and dismissing the pleadings. The court concluded the

settlement agreement was invalid because the parties had not exchanged

discovery responses before executing the agreement. The court stated:

No one moved to enforce discovery. No one moved to dismiss any pleadings for the discovery. . . .

The parties went to . . . mediation . . . and apparently, were able to hammer out this agreement that everyone acknowledges was signed.

How you settle a case without knowing what the issues are from doing orderly discovery, I will – there's no possible way that could be the case. So, under these circumstances, as soon as anyone comes in and says, "I didn't know what I was signing; I wasn't . . . fully apprised of what was available for distribution," there's no possible way this [c]ourt could ever find that the agreement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into with a full understanding of [that] person's rights and responsibilities. So, there's no possible way this [c]ourt can . . . enforce that agreement.

A-3503-22 4 Although no party had requested dismissal of the pleadings, the court then

concluded:

So, now, we're left with a year-and-a-half old case, where no one has done what they are supposed to do. And basically, you would have to start over again.

. . . I'm not willing to do that. I don't think it's fair to the court. I will provide that the date of – for equitable distribution and alimony would be September 22, 2021. In all other respects, the pleadings in this case are dismissed. If you want to come back to me and you have an agreement that everyone is going to say was knowing and voluntarily (sic), I'll reinstate these pleadings. Otherwise, you can start over again by filing a new complaint.

A March 31, 2023 order memorializes the court's decision.

Plaintiff thereafter moved for reconsideration. She argued that the court

erred when it: (1) failed to making findings of fact and conclusions of law

regarding the parties' knowing and voluntary assent to the settlement agreement;

(2) predicated the validity of the agreement on the parties having not responded

to discovery requests; (3) failed to follow Rule 4:23-5 before dismissing the

pleadings for failure to respond to discovery; (4) found the settlement agreement

invalid rather than reformed the agreement pursuant to its equitable authority;

(5) failed to fashion an equitable remedy based on defendant's fraudulent

conduct; and (6) incorrectly found that the equitable distribution date was

A-3503-22 5 September 22, 2021, rather than September 13, 2021. Defendant opposed the

motion.

On May 25, 2023, the court issued a written opinion denying plaintiff's

motion, except with respect to correcting the equitable distribution date. The

court found no basis on which to reconsider its prior decision and clarified that

it dismissed the pleadings pursuant to "its equitable discretion," and not Rule

4:23-5. A May 26, 2023 order memorializes the court's decision.

This appeal followed. Plaintiff argues the family court: (1) erred when it

invalidated the settlement agreement because the parties exchanged financial

information sufficient to make an informed decision to accept the agreement,

which was fair and equitable; (2) erred by failing to remedy defendant's

fraudulent behavior; (3) failed to issue sufficient findings of fact and

conclusions of law explaining it decisions; (4) erred by not holding an

evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact; and (5) committed plain

error when it dismissed the pleadings on its own initiative based on the parties'

failure to respond to discovery requests.

A-3503-22 6 II.

Generally, our review of Family Part orders is limited. Cesare v. Cesare,

154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). Given the court's "special expertise in the field of

domestic relations," substantial deference is owed to its factual findings so long

as they are supported by "adequate, substantial, [and] credible evidence." Id. at

412. "[W]e do not overturn those determinations unless the court abused its

discretion, failed to consider controlling legal principles, or made findings

inconsistent with or unsupported by competent evidence." Storey v. Storey, 373

N.J. Super. 464, 479 (App. Div. 2004). The family court's legal conclusions are

reviewed de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378

(1995).

The settlement of matrimonial disputes is encouraged and highly valued

in our court system. Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34, 44 (2016). "The basic

contractual nature of matrimonial agreements has long been recognized."

Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258, 265 (2007) (citing Harrington v. Harrington,

281 N.J. Super. 39, 46 (App. Div. 1995)). A settlement agreement becomes an

enforceable contract when the parties agree on and manifest their intent to be

bound by the essential terms of the agreement. See Hagrish v. Olson, 254 N.J.

Super. 133, 138 (App. Div. 1992). A mediated settlement, like other contracts,

A-3503-22 7 must be knowingly and voluntarily reached. Minkowitz v. Israeli, 433 N.J.

Super. 111, 139 (App. Div. 2013).

"As a general rule, courts should enforce contracts as the parties intended.

Similarly, it is a basic rule of contractual interpretation that a court must discern

and implement the common intention of the parties." Pacifico, 190 N.J. at 266

(citations omitted). "The court's role is to consider what is written in the context

of the circumstances at the time of drafting and to apply a rational meaning in

keeping with the 'expressed general purpose.'" Ibid. (quoting Atlantic Northern

Airlines, Inc. v. Schwimmer, 12 N.J. 293, 302 (1953)).

"'Agreements between separated spouses executed voluntarily and

understandingly for the purpose of settling the issue of [alimony and child

support] are specifically enforceable, but only to the extent that they are just and

equitable.'" Quinn, 225 N.J. at 48 (quoting Berkowitz v. Berkowitz, 55 N.J. 564,

569 (1970)) (alteration in original). "[S]uch agreements are subject to judicial

supervision and enforcement." Ibid. "A court of equity will enforce a contract

between [spouses] if it is not unconscionable to do so and if the performance to

be compelled is not contrary to public policy." Minkin v. Minkin, 180 N.J.

Super. 260, 262 (Ch. Div. 1981) (citations omitted). A contract will be held

unenforceable if it was "procured by fraud or falsehood," or if such enforcement

A-3503-22 8 would produce "great hardship or manifest injustice." Schiff v. Schiff, 116 N.J.

Super. 546, 561 (App. Div. 1971).

In addition, Rule 1:7-4(a) states that a court "shall, by an opinion or

memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its

conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that

is appealable as of right . . . ." "The rule requires specific findings of fact and

conclusions of law . . . ." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1

on R. 1:7-4 (2024).

We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the court erred

when it invalidated the settlement agreement based solely on the parties' failure

to respond to discovery requests. Neither party requested that relief. Plaintiff

sought an order enforcing or modifying the agreement. Defendant asked the

court to incorporate the agreement into a JOD or, in the alternative, for a hearing

to determine if the agreement was enforceable.

In addition, the court made no findings of fact with respect to whether the

parties, who exchanged financial information prior to engaging in mediation,

knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement. Plaintiff acknowledges

that her counsel did not have all the bank records relating to the parties' accounts

when the agreement was executed. She argues, however, that she had sufficient

A-3503-22 9 information, both from records produced by defendant prior to mediation and

her knowledge of the couple's finances over a fourteen-year marriage, to

knowingly and voluntarily sign the agreement. The family court did not address

these contentions, instead summarily deciding that because of the parties' failure

to respond to discovery requests there was "no possible way" the settlement

agreement could be enforceable. We are aware of no requirement that parties in

a matrimonial action must formally respond to discovery requests before they

may enter into a settlement agreement.

The issues essential to determining the validity of a matrimonial

settlement agreement are whether the parties knowingly and voluntarily entered

into the agreement and whether its terms are fair and equitable. The family court

did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law on either of those questions.

In addition, the court did not resolve plaintiff's allegations that defendant

engaged in fraudulent activity warranting modification of portions of the

agreement or other remedial action. Plaintiff's motion and defendant's cross-

motion raised disputed issues of material fact that require an evidentiary hearing.

In light of these conclusions, we vacate the March 31, 2023 order to the

extent it invalidates the settlement agreement and remand for an evidentiary

A-3503-22 10 hearing on the plaintiff's February 5, 2023 motion and defendant's subsequent

cross-motion. We offer no views with respect to the outcome of those motions.

With respect to the remainder of the March 31, 2023 order, we review a

court's decision whether to reinstate or dismiss a complaint under an abuse of

discretion standard. St. James AME Dev. Corp. v. City of Jersey City, 403 N.J.

Super. 480, 484 (App. Div. 2008); Abtrax Pharms., Inc., v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc.,

139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995). "[B]ecause dismissal with prejudice is 'the ultimate

sanction,' it should be imposed 'only sparingly' and 'normally . . . ordered only

when no lesser sanction will suffice to erase the prejudice suffered by the non -

delinquent party.'" Salazar v. MKGC + Design, 458 N.J. Super. 551, 561-62

(App. Div. 2019) (quoting Robertet Flavors, Inc. v. Tri-Form Constr. Inc., 203

N.J. 252, 274 (2010)).

We conclude that the family court mistakenly exercised its discretion

when it dismissed the pleadings. The court relied on its equitable discretion

based on the parties' failure to respond to discovery requests. The court,

however, made no findings of fact or conclusions of law addressing the

circumstances surrounding their failure to respond. After discovery requests

were served, the parties exchanged financial information and reached a

settlement. These developments are a readily apparent explanation for their

A-3503-22 11 failure to formally respond to the discovery requests. The record contains no

indication that either party demanded formal responses to their discovery

requests, put the opposing party on notice that they would seek dismissal of their

pleadings if such responses were not forthcoming, or ever sought such drastic

relief.

Nor did the family court explore alternatives to dismissal of the pleadings.

Given that the parties exchanged financial information prior to the mediation, it

would be reasonable to conclude that they could provide formal discovery

responses in a relatively short period in the event the court does not enforce or

modify the settlement agreement. This alternative would be preferable to

dismissing the pleadings and suggesting one of the parties file a new complaint

for divorce. Thus, in the event the court determines, after the evidentiary

hearing, that the settlement agreement cannot be enforced or modified, the

pleadings shall be restored and the matter shall proceed to discovery.

Because we vacate the March 31, 2023 order, we also vacate the May 26,

2023 order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

The orders are vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

A-3503-22 12