37:2-35 Premarital or pre-civil union agreement not to adversely affect right of child support

37:2-35  Premarital or pre-civil union agreement not to adversely affect right of child support.
37:2-35. Premarital or pre-civil union agreement not to adversely affect right of child support.

A premarital or pre-civil union agreement shall not adversely affect the right of a child to support.  

37:2-34 Contents of premarital or pre-civil union agreement.

37:2-34  Contents of premarital or pre-civil union agreement.
37:2-34. Contents of premarital or pre-civil union agreement.

Parties to a premarital or pre-civil union agreement may contract with respect to:

a.The rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired or located;

b.The right to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise manage and control property;

c.The disposition of property upon separation, marital dissolution, dissolution of a civil union, death, or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;

d.The modification or elimination of spousal or one partner in a civil union couple support;

e.The making of a will, trust, or other arrangement to carry out the provisions of the agreement;

f.The ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit from a life insurance policy;

g.The choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and

h.Any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy. 

37:2-33 Formalties; consideration premarital or pre-civil union agreement shall be in writing,

 37:2-33  Formalties; consideration.
37:2-33.  Formalities; consideration.

A premarital or pre-civil union agreement shall be in writing, with a statement of assets annexed thereto, signed by both parties, and it is enforceable without consideration.  

37:2-32 Definitions.

37:2-32  Definitions. 
37:2-32.  As used in this article:

a."Premarital or pre-civil union agreement" means an agreement between prospective spouses or partners in a civil union couple made in contemplation of marriage or a civil union and to be effective upon marriage or upon the parties establishing a civil union;

b."Property" means an interest, present or future, legal or equitable, vested or contingent, in real or personal property, including income and earnings;

c.(Deleted by amendment, P.L.2013, c.72).

Uniform Premarital and Pre-Civil Union Agreement Act. 37:2-31

37:2-31   Short title.
 37:2-31.  This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Premarital and Pre-Civil Union Agreement Act.

ARIEL SCHOCHET VS. SHARONA SCHOCHET A-3601-13T2

 ARIEL SCHOCHET VS. SHARONA SCHOCHET 

A-3601-13T2 The court granted plaintiff's application to seek emergent relief from an order that denied his request for the appointment of experts at public expense to testify at an ability to pay hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 1:10-3. Relying upon Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127 (2006), he argues that such appointment is constitutionally required because he faces possible incarceration if the trial court finds he willfully failed to pay his support obligations. Mindful that the appointment of counsel at public expense is required only when an obligor is indigent, we note that the occasion in which an indigent obligor's financial circumstances are so complex as to require expert testimony will be extraordinary. We conclude that plaintiff has failed to show the appointment of experts at public expense is constitutionally required in this case.  04/23/14

court discusses grand parent visitation

 R.K. AND A.K. VS. D.L., JR.
          A-2338-12T1

Plaintiffs, the maternal grandparents of a twelve- year-old girl, filed a verified complaint in the Family Part seeking visitation rights pursuant to our State's grandparent visitation statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. After joinder of issue, but before any discovery, defendant/father moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e). Because the court relied on the parties' supplemental certifications, the motion judge decided the matter as a summary judgment motion under Rule 4:46-2(c).
We reverse. The facts alleged by plaintiffs established a prima facie case for relief under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. The court also erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 4:46-2(c) because there were material issues of fact in dispute. The complexity and magnitude of the allegations also obligated the court to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct discovery in order to gather sufficient evidence to overcome defendant's presumptively valid objection to grandparent visitation as the child's father.
Although under Rule 5:4-4 and AOC Directive 08-11 grandparent visitation complaints are considered summary actions, the burden of proof imposed on plaintiffs in grandparent visitation cases under Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 117 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177, 124 S. Ct. 1408, 158 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2004) makes these matters ill- suited for traditional summary action designation. We thus hold that a complaint seeking grandparent visitation as the principal form of relief should not be automatically treated by the Family Part as a summary action. After joinder of issue, the vicinage Family Part Division Manager shall designate the matter as a contested case and refer the case for individualized case management by a Family Part judge selected by the vicinage Presiding Judge of Family. The judge shall review the pleadings and determine whether active case management is needed. 1/13/14