FAMILY LAW
20-4-2829 Clementi v. Clementi, Ch. Div., Family Pt., Ocean Co. (Jones, J.S.C.) (13 pp.) This case addresses how defendant’s nonappearance at a default divorce proceeding impacts plaintiff’s burden of proof regarding equitable distribution. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the court holds the following: (1) When a defaulting defendant fails to participate in a divorce proceeding, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a default judgment granting all requests regarding equitable distribution. Rather, plaintiff still has an ongoing obligation to persuade the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposal for equitable distribution is fair and equitable under the specific facts of the case. (2) Defendant’s failure to object to plaintiff’s proposed equitable distribution in a notice of final judgment is not necessarily the same as an express written consent, and generally cannot be the sole and exclusive basis for a court to determine that the proposal is fair, reasonable and equitable. However, defendant’s failure to object is one of many relevant factors a court may appropriately consider in determining the overall reasonableness of plaintiff’s proposal for equitable distribution. (3) The value of a marital asset, relative to the remainder of the marital estate, is a legitimate and significant factor for a court to consider in determining whether a defaulting party, who has not appeared in a divorce proceeding, may lose all interest in such asset in favor of the appearing party by way of equitable distribution. [Decided Aug. 13, 2013.]
Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202643066950/Approved-Opinions#ixzz2tKdAlLA3