[brief] Whether or not the automatic stay provision of federal bankruptcy law was technically violated,\(^7\) the shenanigans by [...] and his lawyers in the bankruptcy case is just one more factor showing that the process leading to the judgment of divorce in this case was miles away from the aboveboard one that New Jersey courts require – particularly for a divorce obtained by default by the more powerful, wealthy, and experienced spouse.  \(^7\)  The filing of a bankruptcy petition acts as a stay of the “commencement or continuation” of a judicial proceeding against the debtor, 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a); this includes equitable distribution in divorce, Clark v. Pomponio, 397 N.J. Super. 630 (App. Div. 2008); Frankel v. Frankel, 274 N. J. Super. 585, 590–91 (App. Div. 1994).  The Final Judgment of Divorce was entered after the bankruptcy case ended, but the underlying agreements that the family court entered via its judgment -- the Matrimonial and incorporated Mid-Marriage agreement -- were signed in the middle of the bankruptcy case.  [...] made no findings of fact or conclusions of law on the equitable distribution or alimony issues the agreements purported to resolve.  [...] simply entered a judgment giving effect to them.  [...] noted in his decision below that [...] and his lawyers deliberately withheld these agreements from the knowledge of the bankruptcy trustee.  The assets referenced in the agreements were supposed to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the trustee.  The Mid-Marriage Agreement, executed on December 5, 2013, and the Matrimonial Settlement Agreement executed 43 days later, could certainly be viewed as an act by [...] to obtain possession of property of the bankruptcy estate and to exercise control over property of the estate in violation of the Bankruptcy Code, cf. 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a)(3) (noting stay applicable to “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate”). The agreements also purported to waive [...]’s rights under federal bankruptcy law and give to her husband an irrevocable Power of Attorney, see Para. 6 of Mid-Marriage Agreement (“It is hereby agreed by and between the parties that [...] (Wife) shall execute an Irrevocable Power of Attorney which shall allow [...] (Husband) to take any and all steps necessary to transfer the ownership of personal and or real property inclusive of any real estate lots previously transferred to Wife, any interest in any and all entities inclusive of [...] and [...] as Husband in his sole discretion chooses including but not limiting the transferring of them to Husband, third party, a lender, Bankruptcy Trustee, and/or investor, or co-venturer or otherwise”) CA5; para. 15 of Matrimonial Settlement Agreement (“Wife hereby waives all right, title, claim or interest to any bank accounts, or assets related to said Bankruptcy in accordance with the Irrevocable Power of Attorney previously executed by her on December 5, 2013”)  CA20; para. 16 of the Matrimonial Settlement Agreement (“Wife waives any and all claims with regard to any asset which may be subject to the Bankruptcy proceeding.  Thus, Husband may retain same free or any claim, right, title, or interest by Wife either with regard to said entities or proceeds therefrom”).  CA20.  Whether or not these actions technically violated the federal bankruptcy law, they further show that the process culminating in the Final Judgment of Divorce entered in this case was fundamentally unfair to the affected, absent spouse and incompatible with what New Jersey law requires for divorce resolution in our courts.