Following a long-term marriage, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce and the parties, represented by counsel, entered a comprehensive marital settlement agreement (MSA). Plaintiff sought an uncontested divorce "on the papers" and filed the certification required by the Administrative Office of the Courts for such a proceeding. However, defendant sought an uncontested divorce hearing by way of Zoom, which the court in turn scheduled. Plaintiff died before the uncontested hearing.
His estate, represented by the parties' eldest son, sought to be named the real party in interest and to enforce the MSA, among other relief. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint because of plaintiff's death. The trial judge denied the motion and dismissed the complaint. It ruled that under Carr v. Carr, 120 N.J. 336 (1990), plaintiff's death abated the divorce and there were no unusual or exceptional circumstances warranting invocation of an equitable remedy, such as a constructive trust, to prevent an unjust enrichment by defendant.
The court reversed and remanded for entry of an order permitting the estate to be substituted as the real party in interest and incorporating the MSA into a final judgment. Although defendant did not engage in conduct warranting the imposition of a constructive trust, the trial court overlooked the fact the parties had a fully signed MSA that was fair and equitable, whose validity defendant did not challenge, and that but for the delay in scheduling the uncontested hearing, both parties intended to proceed with the uncontested divorce. Therefore, the equities and our public policy of encouraging and enforcing settlements in matrimonial matters did not warrant discarding the MSA and dismissing the matter.
While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended the intestacy and equitable distribution statutes. The amendments to the equitable distribution statute authorize Family Part judges to effectuate equitable distribution where a party dies during a divorce proceeding and the complaint has not been previously dismissed pursuant to Rule 4:6-2. The Legislation is effective January 8, 2024.
The court reviewed the plain language of the new statutes and the legislative statement accompanying their passage, and concluded the Legislature intended to afford pipeline retroactivity to pending cases. Therefore, the new statutes applied to this case and provided independent grounds to uphold and enforce the parties' MSA.