Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sean King v. Denise A. King

March 7, 2011

SEAN KING, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DENISE A. KING, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-901-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued February 8, 2011

Decided Before Judges Messano and Waugh.

Plaintiff Sean King appeals an order of the Family Part denying his motion for a reduction in his spousal and child support obligations based on a change in his employment circumstances. We affirm.

I.

We discern the following factual and procedural background from the record.

Sean King and defendant Denise King were married in February 1991.*fn1 They had five children, born between 1991 and 2000. In June 2006, having previously separated, they entered into a comprehensive property settlement agreement (PSA) to resolve all financial and parenting issues. They were divorced the same month, with the PSA incorporated into the judgment of divorce.

The PSA calls for the parties to share joint legal custody of their children, with Denise to be the parent of primary residence and Sean to have "liberal and flexible parenting time." The PSA requires the parties to cooperate with each other on issues related to the children, and provides for their education and the circumstances of emancipation. Each party is required to maintain life insurance in specific amounts for the benefit of the children, with the other spouse to be designated as their trustee.

With respect to equitable distribution, the PSA divided the couple's vehicles, bank accounts, other property, and debts.

Each party had an IRA, with Sean's being the larger of the two. The PSA required Sean to make a tax-free transfer of one half of the difference between the two IRAs. Finally, the PSA provides that Denise is permitted to live in the marital residence for twelve years, after which it would be sold. She is required to bear all of the expenses related to the residence while she lives there. The PSA contains a detailed formula for determining the distribution of the proceeds of the eventual sale of the residence, as well as a formula to be followed in the event Denise seeks to purchase the property for herself.

The PSA requires Sean to pay Denise spousal support in the amount of $50,000 per year for a period of twelve years. The spousal support is payable in bi-monthly installments of $2,083.33. The PSA also contains a broadly worded anti-Lepis*fn2

provision, which provides as follows:

The parties have had explained to them the provisions of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) and Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 1993) and Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000) and waive their rights for modification based upon a change in circumstance . . . . Furthermore, [plaintiff] understands his obligation in this Agreement to [defendant] and recognizes that it is not dischargeable in Bankruptcy . . . . The parties have envisioned ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.