Pacifico v. Pacifico
In the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case of Pacifico v. Pacifico, the contract doctrine of contra proferentem was discussed. This doctrine provides that when a contract term is ambiguous, a court must adopt the meaning that is most favorable to the nondrafting party.
In this particular case, the parties (husband and wife) had entered into a Property Settlement Agreement dealing the issues in their divorce case. With regard to the marital home, it was agreed that the parties would continue to own the marital home as joint tenants until it was sold at any one of certain triggering events. The wife was to have the first option to buy out the husband’s interest and the husband was to have the second option. If neither party wished to purchase the other party’s interest in the home, it would be sold.
When the younger son became emancipated, the wife offered to buy the husband’s share of the home at the value determined in 1996 – the date of the Property Settlement Agreement. The husband’s position was that the value should be set at the current fair market value.
The trial court held that the wife had the right to purchase the husband’s interest at the current fair market value. The Appellate Division reversed and held that the Property Settlement Agreement was ambiguous because it did not specify the date on which the property should be valued for buyout purposes. The Court stated that any ambiguity should be construed in the wife’s favor since the husband’s attorney drafted the Property Settlement Agreement.
The Supreme Court disagreed holding that the doctrine of contra proferentum should not have been applied here, where both parties attorneys were involved in different drafts of the agreement and where there was no unequal bargaining power between the parties.
The case was remanded back to the trial court for a determination of the parties’ intent and credibility.
Reader interactions
2 Replies to “Pacifico v. Pacifico”
Comments are closed.
I was divorced 13 years ago and I have two children ages 17 & 14. The last modification to my child support order was done in 1997. Since this time I have not received any cost of living increases as my ex does not pay through probation. I would like to have this reviewed, since my ex’s salary is at least 25% higher, the children’s expenses are much greater and just the cost of living has gone up so much during the last 10 years. I currently receive $275.00 per week and this was based on my ex’s net income at the time which was $885.00 per week. Now, my ex’s net income is $1330.00 per week and mine is $625.00 per week. He has the children at most 36 overnights per year. My question is, would I be entitled to an increase in child support? Also, would I be entitled to any cost of living increase? He feels that at most he should only have to pay $15.00 per week more. Also, my daughter just got her driver’s license so she need to be added to my insurance policy. This increased my car insurance $1300.00 per year. Should he also contribute to this expense? Thanks for any help!
I really need your gross incomes per week to calculate child support, however I backed into them with the information you gave me. Unfortunately, your child support is approximately the same as your ex has been paying. By my calculations, it is $274 per week. Pursuant to Court Rules, you are entitled to a cost of living increase every two years, but you will have to compute that yourself and get your ex to sign a consent order in order for it to be effective (unless he pays through probation or that language is already in your prior support order). With regard to car insurance, you may have to file a motion to compel your ex to pay toward that expense – unless he agrees voluntarily to pay his proportionate share (which is 68%). Car insurance is not covered by child support, however, unless your property settlement agreement states that he has to contribute, he currently has no obligation.
Sincerely,
Maria