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.

Dina Kaul v. Richard Kaul

August 15, 2011

DINA KAUL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/ CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
RICHARD KAUL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FM-18-254-08.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued June 8, 2011

Before Judges Wefing, Payne, and Koblitz.

Plaintiff, Dina Kaul, appeals from an order of Family Part Judge Anthony F. Picheca enforcing a property settlement agreement (PSA) between her and her former husband, defendant Richard Kaul. On appeal, plaintiff raises the following arguments:

POINT I

THE PURPORTED PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE DISPARITY WITHIN THE PURPORTED AGREEMENT.

SUB-POINTS

Non Disclosure of Real Estate and Business Support Allocation Child Support Alimony POINT II

THE COURT'S DEFICIENCY IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE PROCEDURAL UNCONSCIONABILITY IS REVERSIBLE ERROR.

POINT III

THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY FINDINGS MANDATE A REMAND TO A NEW JUDGE.

Defendant cross-appeals from an award of attorney's fees. We affirm both orders on appeal.

I.

Plaintiff is a graduate of Muhlenberg College; defendant is an anesthesiologist, originally from the United Kingdom. Plaintiff and defendant met in late 2001 and began cohabiting in New York in December 2001. Their first child, a son, was born in November 2002. After multiple breakdowns in the parties' relationship, they reconciled and were married in November 2003. Thereafter, they purchased a residence in Bernardsville for approximately $2.3 million, obtaining a mortgage of approximately $1.5 million. The parties' second child, a daughter, was born in December 2004.

In May 2005, the parties purchased a townhouse in New York City for approximately $3.7 million, but at about that time, they separated. Despite the separation, plaintiff did not seek a divorce until 2007. Testimony in this matter suggests that the delay was occasioned by ...


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.