Appellate Division Of New Jersey Affirms Oral Divorce Agreement in Settlement Conference

SUZANNE FEINBERG v. DAMON FEINBERG

Docket No. A-2940-21

Decided December 27, 2024

Submitted by New Jersey Divorce Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.

In a recent unpublished decision the Appellate Division of New Jersey affirmed an agreement reached by the parties to a divorce during a settlement conference with a Judge.

In Feinberg v. Feinberg, approximately two weeks before trial, the parties participated in a virtual “final Four-Way Intensive Settlement Conference” pursuant to the judge’s order. Judge Issenman, a retired judge with about seventeen years’ experience in family court, conducted three settlement conferences without compensation from the parties. At the end of the third conference, defendant’s counsel told Judge Issenman that defendant accepted plaintiff’s last and final offer of $240,000 in consideration for agreeing to the divorce and a mutual release. That evening, without copying defendant, defendant’s counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel and Judge Issenman confirming that defendant accepted plaintiff’s offer.

The next day, defendant’s counsel emailed, with a copy to defendant and plaintiff’s counsel, a letter to the judge reporting the parties resolved the matter. However, four days later, defendant emailed his counsel stating he “will not sign the marital settlement agreement.”

Despite defendant’s email, his counsel sent the settlement agreement to defendant to sign. In response, defendant twice emailed his counsel asserting he wanted new counsel. Several days later, defendant’s new and current counsel sent a letter to the judge claiming defendant suffered from “a serious breakdown in communications [regarding] the attorney/client relationship with” prior counsel, and that, within twenty-four hours of accepting plaintiff’s offer, defendant “had second thoughts” and refused to sign the written settlement agreement.

The Court conducted a Harrington hearing to determine whether an agreement had been reached. Accepting testimony from both parties and Judge Issenman, the Court determined that defendant was not credible and that there was a valid enforceable agreement. Defendant appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding an agreement existed between the parties during a settlement conference and defendant merely changed his mind after agreeing to the terms.

A Harrington hearing is used by Courts to determine whether a settlement has been reached that was not reduced to writing, or that was an incomplete writing.  Court’s generally favor agreements when they are found and it is the public policy of New Jersey to uphold and enforce settlements. Although settlements from mediation that are not reduced to writing are unenforceable, the Court found that this agreement occurred during a settlement conference with a Judge and was indeed enforceable.

Second thoughts happen often in family court agreements because it usually requires both parties to compromise.  However, if you indicate to Court personnel that you are in agreement with proposed terms that were placed on the record but not reduced to writing, you could be bound by those terms. It is imperative that you have an experienced attorney to ensure you are aware of your rights and all the alternatives before indicating that you agree to terms.

If you have questions about divorce agreements, custody, parenting time, changes in circumstance requiring a modification, alimony, child support, and divorce, or appeals, contact the experienced matrimonial divorce attorneys at Hark & Hark today.

In recognition of these trying financial times, we are reducing fees and working with clients to come up with manageable payment plans. Initial consultation is always free and we are available remotely.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing domestic violence charges similar to this circumstance, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem counties. We represent clients in all towns in New Jersey, including Borough of Clayton, Township of Elk, East Greenwich Township, Township of Logan, Township of Mantua, Township of Monroe, Borough of National Park, Township of Harrison, Borough of Paulsboro, Borough of Pitman, Township of Greenwich, Township of South Harrison, Borough of Swedesboro, Township of Franklin, Borough of Newfield, Township of West Deptford, Township of Washington, City of Woodbury, Borough of Woodbury Heights, Borough of Westville, Borough of Glassboro, Township of Woolwich, Township of Deptford, and Borough of Wenonah.