SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0631-17T1

DIMITRA KAMBITSIS,

Plaintiff-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

DEMETRIUS KAMBITSIS,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent.

______________________________

Argued December 16, 2019 – Decided April 17, 2020

Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, 

Docket No. FM-12-2867-14.

Stephen P. Haller argued the cause for appellant/crossrespondent (Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost & Botwinick, 

PC, attorneys; Stephen P. Haller and Jennie L. Osborne, 

of counsel and on the briefs).

Francis W. Donahue argued the cause for 

respondent/cross-appellant (Donahue, Hagan, Klein & 

Weisberg, LLC, attorneys; Francis W. Donahue, of 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0631-17T1

counsel and on the briefs; David S. Mack and Alexis

Miriam Miller, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

In March 2004, while represented by counsel and after exchanging certain 

financial information, plaintiff Dimitra Kambitsis and defendant Demetrius 

Kambitsis executed a premarital agreement (PMA). The Case Information 

Statement (CIS) each supplied to the other, and additional financial data 

defendant supplied to plaintiff, demonstrated that six months earlier, in 

September 2003, plaintiff's net worth was $52,197, and defendant's net worth 

exceeded $21 million.1 The parties signed the PMA in defense counsel's office

with both counsel present, and a court reporter transcribed the proceedings. 

Plaintiff confirmed that her attorney had repeatedly advised her not to execute 

the agreement because it was not in her best interest. Nevertheless, plaintiff 

stated she understood the terms of the PMA, was not under any duress, and 

wished to proceed. 

The PMA specified in pertinent part:

1

 Defendant shared a business valuation report prepared by an accounting firm 

for his company, Raceway Petroleum, Inc. (Raceway), which, along with related 

companies, defendant owned with his brother. Defendant also supplied his 

personal 2001 and 2002 tax returns, a statement for a 401k account, and 

brokerage and bank account statements.
3

A-0631-17T1

11. (A) The parties acknowledge that the place of their 

initial contemplated joint residence is owned by 

[defendant], and that [plaintiff] has no legal or 

equitable right, title, interest, or claim in or to said 

property.

. . . .

16. "Termination of marriage" shall mean . . . the . . .

[f]iling of a [c]omplaint for [d]ivorce . . . . 

. . . .

18. . . . The parties have agreed that no temporary, 

pendente lite, term, rehabilitative, "permanent" or other 

alimony or spousal support or maintenance . . . shall be 

sought by [plaintiff] or in any form or fashion paid by 

[defendant] to [plaintiff]. In reaching this Agreement, 

the parties have considered the following foreseeable 

circumstances (and have waived the effects of any 

unforeseen circumstances): 

(a) [i]ncreases or decreases in their income; 

(b) [t]heir loss or inability to secure 

employment; 

(c) [a]ny prospective loss of, change in 

status, or change of employment; 

(d) [l]oss of separate property; 

(e) [d]issipation of separate property, for 

whatever cause;

(f) [t]he existence of any child or children 

of the marriage; 

(g) [a]ny other event that may or does 

change the quality of their economic lives.

. . . .
4

A-0631-17T1

20. [Plaintiff] further warrants and represents that her 

premarital standard of living was modest . . . and can 

fully be funded now, and in the future, by the use of her 

personal income from all sources, as well as other 

assets and income from various and diverse members 

of her family. She further agrees that she does not 

require, and shall not accept, funds or support from 

[defendant] under any circumstances, in the event of 

termination of the marriage.

21. In the event that the marriage terminates after the 

birth of children, the parties agree, understand and 

acknowledge that both shall have an obligation to 

contribute to the support and welfare of those children. 

The parties agree that New Jersey Law regarding 

support of the children shall prevail, however, 

[plaintiff] explicitly agrees that she shall not plead the 

provisions of this Agreement, or the terms thereof, in 

any effort to obtain child support payments from 

[defendant] which would exceed any applicable 

guidelines in the recognition that she has, and accepts, 

a co-equal obligation for the financial welfare of any 

children of the marriage.

. . . .

23. (b) In the event the marriage terminates with 

surviving children born to the parties:

(1) Upon the birth of the first child, 

[defendant] shall purchase a $1 million 

term life insurance policy on his life, 

[plaintiff] would be the beneficiary of the 

insurance policy, which she shall be 

obliged to use to provide for the benefit of 

any children of the marriage.

. . . .
5

A-0631-17T1

(6) [Defendant] agrees to execute a Last 

Will & Testament leaving to the children 

of the marriage, share and share alike, 28% 

of his estate, naming [plaintiff] as the 

Trustee of the inheritance for any 

unemancipated child. The remaining 72% 

of [defendant's] estate can be divided as he 

sees fit, and [plaintiff] waives all right, title 

and interest in and to that portion of his 

estate, including any "forced share" or 

other such inheritance rights.

24. . . . Each party waives and relinquishes all rights 

now held or hereafter acquired under the laws of any 

jurisdiction to share in the separate property and estate 

of the other as a result of the marital relationship, 

including, but not limited to, dower, curtesy, equitable 

distribution, statutory allowances, widow(er)'s 

share/allowance, homestead rights, rights under 

intestacy, "forced share," right to act as 

administrator/executor/trix, and any community 

property rights. (citation omitted).

. . . .

27. Each party has executed this Agreement freely, 

voluntarily, without persuasion, fraud, undue influence 

or economic, physical or emotional duress. . . . 

Moreover, the disparity between the total value of the 

assets owned by the parties is considered by them to be 

of no consequence.

. . . .

35. Each party shall pay her and his own legal fees in 

the negotiation and preparation/execution of this 

Agreement. A party who fails to abide by the terms of 
6

A-0631-17T1

this Agreement shall indemnify the other party for all 

reasonable costs and expenses, including professional 

fees, incurred in enforcing this Agreement or asserting 

or defending his or her rights hereunder as against the 

other party or third parties.

Additionally, the PMA provided that if the marriage "terminate[d] with 

surviving children" after lasting "more than ten, but less than twenty-five years,"

defendant agreed to provide plaintiff with: (1) a lump sum payment of 

$145,000; (2) thirty-six months of health insurance (eighteen months through 

COBRA and eighteen months through a private HMO); (3) a "contribution . . . 

not to exceed $250,000[]" towards the purchase of a 3000 square foot home in 

Middlesex County that was "reasonably acceptable to [plaintiff]"; and (4) a 

"contribution . . . not [to] exceed $30,000[]" towards the purchase of an 

automobile. Other provisions of the PMA stated that plaintiff had no claim to: 

(1) defendant's separate premarital property; (2) property of any kind acquired 

during the marriage solely in defendant's name; or (3) any increase in value of 

any pension, deferred compensation, 401k, retirement, profit sharing, or IRA 

acquired by defendant before and during the marriage, and to any of the above 

acquired during the marriage in defendant's name alone. 

The parties married in May 2004 and moved into a home which defendant 

purchased in his name for $615,000 in cash. Five children were born between 
7

A-0631-17T1

2005 and 2010. In 2012, defendant purchased a home in his own name for $1.57 

million in cash. Although the parties intended to move there, from 2012 to 2014 

they essentially used only the pool and pool house. Defendant purchased a 

vacant school building in the same town through one of their companies in 2011, 

and the family used the gymnasium and art room in the building.

Meanwhile, in 2007, the parties executed an amendment to the PMA 

during another transcribed signing ceremony at defense counsel's office. The 

amendment included plaintiff's specific acknowledgment that she was under no 

duress, had chosen to proceed without an attorney, was not represented by 

defense counsel, and her waiver of representation would "not act to impair or 

invalidate" the PMA as amended.

The amendment deleted Paragraph 23(b)(1) of the PMA and provided:

6. In place of Paragraph 23(b)(1) . . . the following 

provision is inserted:

"23(b) [Defendant] shall further provide life 

insurance as follows:

(1) Since children have been born to the parties, 

[defendant] shall immediately secure a minimum of 

$1,000,000[] . . . life insurance on his life, (or, in his 

sole discretion make the existing children, and any 

future children, the joint equal beneficiaries of that total 

amount from his estate). This amount shall be payable 

to a separate Trust for the benefit of all the children 

during the period of their minority, with [plaintiff] 
8

A-0631-17T1

named as the Trustee thereof. The "Trust" mentioned 

in this sub-paragraph is and shall be separate and apart 

from any other formal Trust created by [defendant] for

any children born of the marriage. This $1,000,000[]

policy/estate entitlement is a total amount for all 

children, irrespective of the number of children born to 

the parties. In addition, during the marriage and only 

during the marriage, [defendant] shall maintain 

$1,000,000[] . . . of insurance on his life payable to 

[plaintiff] in place of all other life insurance required of 

him in the [PMA] between the parties (or, in his sole 

discretion he may make [plaintiff] the beneficiary of 

that amount from his estate). [Defendant] shall have no 

other enforceable life insurance obligation except as 

explicitly set forth in this [p]aragraph."

7. Paragraph 23(b)(6) is hereby deleted.

Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2014, defendant filed an answer and 

counterclaim, and both filed CISs. Plaintiff claimed little or no knowledge of 

the parties' shelter expenses or assets but estimated monthly personal expenses 

of $13,391. Defendant did not state the value of the real estate he owned in his 

name, the vehicles owned by the parties, or the surrender value of his life 

insurance; he estimated the shelter, transportation and personal expenses of the 

family to be $11,510 per month. Defendant identified ten other businesses in 

which he held interests, a 401k, and an investment account in his name, but he 

assigned no values to these. Defendant also disclosed ownership of certificates 

of deposit and bank accounts totaling nearly $800,000. He said that Raceway 
9

A-0631-17T1

had outstanding loans and accounts payable, which he had personally guaranteed 

amounting to approximately $21 million.

In an October 2014 order, the judge awarded plaintiff various pendente 

lite relief, and also granted defendant's request to conduct a plenary hearing on 

the enforceability of the PMA.2 Motion practice continued thereafter unabated, 

but most of the issues raised at this point in the litigation are not relevant for our 

purposes.

The plenary hearing took place between February and April 2016, at 

which plaintiff and defendant testified about their relationship leading up to 

execution of the PMA.3 In her August 18, 2016 order (the August 2016 order) 

and accompanying statement of reasons, which we discuss more fully below, the 

hearing judge determined the PMA was enforceable, defendant had no alimony

obligation to plaintiff, and he was not required to pay plaintiff any more than a 

lump sum of $145,000. The order provided that the ruling as to the 

enforceability of the PMA "shall not be disturbed by the [c]ourt at a later 

2

 For the balance of the opinion, we refer to the PMA and the amendment as the 

PMA.

3

 The only other witness was a clergyman who refuted plaintiff's claim that she 

had made plans for an earlier wedding but had to cancel them when defendant 

insisted on executing a premarital agreement.
10 A-0631-17T1

hearing." The order further required defendant to pay plaintiff's counsel fees, 

which award "represent[ed] a final determination on the issue of counsel fee 

payments for the enforceability of the parties' [PMA.]" 

The judge also ordered that the amount of defendant's child support 

obligation and his responsibility to maintain life insurance for the children's 

benefit would be determined at a later hearing. Contrary to the provisions of the 

PMA, the judge did not place a $1 million limit on any potential policy ordered

in the future. The order also vacated the PMA's provisions regarding defendant's

contributions toward the purchases of a new home and automobile for plaintiff 

and said, instead, that defendant's obligations in this regard would be determined 

at a later hearing.

Plaintiff and defendant filed an updated CIS prior to the trial that took 

place on all remaining issues and over which a different judge presided. We 

need not recount the testimony in detail at this point. The pertinent provisions 

of the August 2017 final dual judgment of divorce (JOD) provided:

5. Commencing in 2018, each party shall also be 

entitled to two (2) weeks of vacation time with the 

children per year, to be exercised non-consecutively, 

with the parties to provide a minimum of [thirty] days 

of advance notice to each other. . . . The party having 

priority in any given year shall advise the other of their 

vacation parenting time in writing by April 1. The party 

not having priority shall notify the other party in 
11 A-0631-17T1

writing by May 1. . . . There is no prohibition on 

"tacking" vacation time on to regular parenting time 

(e.g.[,] scheduling a week of vacation which adjoins 

that party's parenting time, thus giving a party more 

than [seven] consecutive days with the children).

. . . .

7. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff child support 

. . . in the sum of [$8186] per month, payable at the rate 

of [$1889] per week commencing upon entry of this 

[JOD]. 

. . . .

9. The [defendant] shall contribute up to $675,000[]

toward the purchase of a home for the plaintiff. This 

sum shall be placed in escrow by the defendant . . . 

within 60 days. That $675,000[] maximum obligation 

may be used by the plaintiff for the sale price, including 

all necessary and customary closing costs. Any amount 

. . . in excess of the sale price and all necessary and 

customary closing costs after closing shall be retained 

by the defendant.

. . . .

11. The defendant shall contribute up to $40,000[]

toward the purchase of a vehicle for the plaintiff. The 

defendant shall place this sum in escrow . . . within 60 

days. The plaintiff shall purchase said vehicle within 

90 days. Upon doing so, she shall return the vehicle 

currently in her possession to the defendant as it is the 

[c]ourt's understanding that she currently drives one of 

his vehicles. Any excess above the $40,000[] not used 

for said vehicle shall be . . . returned to the defendant.
12 A-0631-17T1

12. Defendant shall provide health insurance for 

plaintiff for [thirty-six] months; [eighteen] months

through COBRA and an additional [eighteen] months 

through a private HMO policy. This obligation to 

maintain medical insurance as provided in the [PMA] 

shall commence upon entry of the [JOD]. 

. . . .

14. The defendant shall maintain $2,750,000[] in life 

insurance for the benefit of the minor children until 

emancipation. This coverage can be reduced by 

$550,000[] upon the emancipation of each of the five 

(5) children. The plaintiff shall be designated as trustee 

for the funds to be used for the benefit of the children.

15. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff counsel fees 

in the sum of $225,000[]. This sum shall be paid from 

defendant to plaintiff within 60 days . . . .

Defendant filed his appeal, and plaintiff cross appealed.

Defendant then moved in the trial court for a stay of paragraphs nine, 

eleven and fifteen of the JOD, which required him to pay $940,000 toward the 

purchase of plaintiff's new home and car, and the award of counsel fees within 

sixty days. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking enforcement of the child 

support and the travel provisions of the JOD. 

At the conclusion of the October 27, 2017 hearing on the cross-motions,

the judge entered an order (the October 27 order) denying defendant's motion 

for a stay and granting in part plaintiff's enforcement motion. In paragraph four 
13 A-0631-17T1

of the order, the judge agreed that the child support awarded under the JOD only 

satisfied the children's needs when they were with plaintiff, and "each party 

[was] responsible for satisfying expenses the children incur during their 

respective parenting time[.]" In paragraph five, the judge also "enforce[ed]" and 

"clarif[ied]" the parenting time provisions of the JOD, such that "if either party 

[were] taking any of the children out of the tri-state area or traveling by plane, 

that party shall notify the other, in advance, and provide a complete itinerary." 

Lastly, in paragraph six, because of defendant's bad faith in seeking a stay, the 

judge also ordered defendant to pay plaintiff's counsel fees in the amount of 

$13,301. 

We denied defendant's application for a stay on an emergent basis. He 

filed a formal motion for a stay, which was considered by our court and denied 

in the normal course. Defendant filed an amended notice of appeal challenging 

paragraphs four, five, and six of the October 2017 order.

I.

As to each and every portion of the JOD discussed above, defendant 

contends that the trial court misapplied the law, abused its discretion, or both. 

Succinctly stated, as to the financial provisions of the JOD, defendant claims the 

trial judge awarded plaintiff alimony through the "back door." As to the October 
14 A-0631-17T1

2017 order, defendant contends the judge abused his discretion and, regarding 

the award of counsel fees, defendant asserts the judge made "insufficient and 

improper findings of fact upon which" to base the award. In the event we reverse 

and remand on any issue, defendant urges us to order that a different judge 

conduct the hearing.

Plaintiff opposes the arguments raised by defendant, and, in her crossappeal, contends the "substantial credible evidence in the record does not 

support the enforcement of plaintiff's alimony waiver." Plaintiff argues that 

reversal of those provisions of the August 2016 order that enforced the alimony 

waiver in the PMA compels only a remand "for limited discovery and 

determination of a fair award of limited duration alimony." She also argues that 

the elimination of paragraph 23(b)(6) of the original PMA, which obligated 

defendant to bequeath 28% of his estate to the children, violated public policy

and lacked any consideration. Plaintiff also contends those provisions of 

paragraph fourteen of the JOD, which permitted reduction of defendant's life 

insurance obligations upon emancipation of each child, must be set aside 

because the PMA provided for no such reduction. 

In opposition to the cross-appeal, defendant contends the August 2016 

order was a final order, appealable as of right, and, therefore, plaintiff's 
15 A-0631-17T1

challenge is untimely. We reject that argument out of hand. "Appeals as of 

right from the Superior Court generally may be taken only from final 

judgments." Huny & BH Assocs. Inc. v. Silberberg, 447 N.J. Super. 606, 609 

(App. Div. 2016) (citing R. 2:2-3(a)(1)). "Final judgments are those that 

adjudicate 'all issues as to all parties.'" Ibid. (quoting Silviera-Francisco v. Bd. 

of Educ. of Elizabeth, 224 N.J. 126, 136 (2016)). It is obvious that the August 

2016 order did not adjudicate all issues as to the parties and specifically required 

further proceedings resulting in the JOD. In any event, defendant argues 

plaintiff failed to demonstrate the PMA was "unenforceable," the elimination of 

the children's inheritance did not violate public policy, and the reduction of life 

insurance upon each child's emancipation was appropriate.

Because it impacts all that follows, we consider plaintiff's cross-appeal 

first.

A.

In her August 18, 2016 opinion following the plenary hearing on the 

enforceability of the PMA, the judge found defendant credibly testified that he 

never would have married without a PMA, and that he discussed this fully with 

plaintiff. The judge was persuaded that defendant's brother, who, according to 

defendant, controlled much of the businesses' operations, had a great deal of 
16 A-0631-17T1

influence over defendant. On the other hand, the judge rejected plaintiff's 

testimony that defendant told her the PMA only dealt with Raceway, or that 

defendant "blindsided her" when he confronted her with the PMA. Although 

the judge accepted plaintiff's testimony that defendant paid for her lawyer to 

negotiate and advise her about the PMA, the judge noted that the attorney 

successfully effectuated changes to the agreement proposed by plaintiff. In the 

judge's view, plaintiff's "demonstrable effort[s] to disingenuously dramatize her 

story" with "falsifications" about wedding plans essentially eliminated duress as 

a possible reason to invalidate the PMA. 

Noting that testimony from an expert would have been helpful, the judge 

expressed doubt about plaintiff's medical conditions and purported lack of 

employability. The judge concluded:

In view of the other provisions [in the PMA], 

[p]laintiff had not specifically demonstrated how the 

waiver of alimony, in all contexts, subsequent to the 

parties' divorce would be an unconscionable provision. 

By clear and convincing evidence, [p]laintiff has not 

shown the [PMA] would only be conscionable — or 

would not be unconscionable — if she were to receive 

alimony. . . . [T]he [PMA] provides for her and the . . .

children through other means, such that the specific 

waiver of alimony, a provision expressly agreed upon 

by the parties, is not unconscionable. Moreover, 

[p]laintiff has not demonstrated by clear and 

convincing evidence that she cannot financially support 

herself and provide for herself alone. Plaintiff is 
17 A-0631-17T1

certainly entitled to receive child support for the benefit 

of the children . . . but this [c]ourt will not reward what 

so clearly appears to be [p]laintiff's willful 

unemployment . . . .

Later in her decision, the judge again commented on plaintiff's lack of 

employment:

Only at [a later hearing when defendant's child support 

obligation is determined] will the merits of [p]laintiff's 

level of employment, despite sharing equal parenting 

time of the children with [defendant], be ripe for 

adjudication. It is true that [p]laintiff is and has been 

unemployed, but she has not shown by clear and 

convincing evidence that she has no ability to work, 

earn an income, or support herself in any way[,] shape 

or form. It is also clear that by virtue of her work 

experience and recent absence from the job market that 

she would not be capable of earning an income 

comparable to that of [d]efendant. But the disparity in 

the parties' income does not relieve her of any 

responsibility to provide financial support for herself. 

Her salary and income may pale in comparison to 

[d]efendant, but her willful unemployment shall not be 

rewarded by the receipt of extra financial support from 

[d]efendant beyond an incidental benefit she may 

receive from [d]efendant's child support obligation in 

support of the parties' children. At a final hearing, the 

[c]ourt shall take a hard look at the parties' 

circumstances, including all financial determinations 

therein providing money or other assets to [p]laintiff, 

and carefully calculate [d]efendant's child support 

obligation so as to avoid a situation wherein child 

support serves as "back door alimony" beyond the 

extent of an incidental benefit permitted by law.
18 A-0631-17T1

Even though the judge upheld the alimony waiver in the PMA, she nonetheless 

concluded "[t]he bottom[]line is that in order to avoid an unconscionable result, 

[p]laintiff requires more financial support than what is granted to her under the 

[PMA] . . . for the benefit of the children." 

The judge cited N.J.S.A. 37:2-32(c), which, when the PMA was executed

and amended, defined an "[u]nconscionable premarital agreement" as 

an agreement, either due to a lack of property or 

unemployability:

(1) Which would render a spouse without a means 

of reasonable support;

(2) Which would make a spouse a public charge; 

or

(3) Which would provide a standard of living far 

below that which was enjoyed before the 

marriage.[4]

4

 "New Jersey adopted the Uniform Pre-Marital Agreement Act (the Act), 

N.J.S.A. 37:2-31 to -41, in 1988." Rogers v. Gordon, 404 N.J. Super. 213, 219 

(App. Div. 2008). A 2013 amendment to the Act eliminated N.J.S.A. 37:2-32(c). 

See L. 2013, c. 72, § 1. The amendment applied only to those agreements 

entered into, or amended, after the legislation's effective date, June 27, 2013. L.

2013, c. 72, § 3.

Both parties seemingly accept, as did the judge, that the pre-amendment 

Act applied. This is consistent with the express language of the amendment, 

and the Legislature's intent. See N.J. Comm., Statement to S. 2151 n.3 (March 

21, 2013) ("premarital . . . agreements entered into before the effective date 

would remain subject to the current law, which permits agreements to be set 

aside if deemed, at the time of enforcement, to be unconscionable").
19 A-0631-17T1

The judge imputed income of $15,000 to plaintiff, assumed the $145,000 

plaintiff would receive under the PMA would be quickly exhausted, and given

the uncertainty about the amount of any child support award, determined that 

even though the PMA obligated defendant to pay for plaintiff's house and car, 

plaintiff would soon become impoverished. The judge specifically found 

plaintiff would experience "'a standard of living far below that which was 

enjoyed before the marriage' or . . . [be] left 'without a means of reasonable 

support.'" (quoting ibid.). Accordingly, the hearing judge decided to "rescue" 

the PMA from unconscionability by reforming some of its provisions. She 

decided that defendant's financial contributions towards plaintiff's home and car 

would be "ascertained at a final hearing" taking into account plaintiff's total 

financial circumstances.

The trial judge ultimately imputed income of $17,555 per annum to 

plaintiff after considering her education, prior work experience, past income and 

then part-time position working at the children's school. In his written decision, 

the trial judge noted that defendant's income was 99.9999% of the parties' 

combined income. Even defendant acknowledged during trial that plaintiff was 

not capable of earning much more than $16,000 per year. Meanwhile, 

Raceway's accountant testified at trial that defendant's personal brokerage
20 A-0631-17T1

account was worth approximately $21 million as of May 2017. He estimated 

that another account owned by an LLC, in which defendant was an equal partner 

with his brother, was worth approximately $32 million in 2015. 

B.

We generally defer to factual findings made by a trial court when such 

findings are supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence. Gnall v. 

Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015). "We review the Family Part judge's findings 

in accordance with a deferential standard of review, recognizing the court's 

'special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters.'" Thieme v. AucoinThieme, 227 N.J. 269, 282–83 (2016) (quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 

413 (1998)). This is particularly so where the evidence is largely testimonial 

and rests on the judge's credibility determinations. Gnall, 222 N.J. at 428. "A 

more exacting standard governs our review of the trial court's legal 

conclusions[,] . . . [which] we review . . . de novo." Thieme, 227 N.J. at 283 

(citing D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 245–46 (2012)).

"Pre-nuptial agreements establishing post-divorce obligations and rights 

should be held valid and enforceable." Hawxhurst v. Hawxhurst, 318 N.J. 

Super. 72, 80 (App. Div. 1998) (citing Marschall v. Marschall, 195 N.J. Super. 

16, 27 (Ch. Div. 1984)). "These contracts should be encouraged by the courts 
21 A-0631-17T1

'at least "to the extent that the parties have developed comprehensive and 

particularized agreements responsive to their peculiar circumstances."'" Ibid.

(quoting D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 200 N.J. Super. 361, 366 (App. Div. 1985)). 

"[S]imply because a spouse receives a disproportionate amount of assets does 

not necessarily render an agreement voidable because it is for the parties 

themselves to decide what is fair and equitable." Ibid. (citing DeLorean v. 

DeLorean, 211 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1986)). In Rogers, we later 

summarized some basic principles governing review of PMAs:

The "conditions" under which prenuptial agreements 

would be deemed valid and enforceable evolved into a 

three prong test: (1) that there be "full disclosure by 

each party as to his or her financial conditions;" (2) that 

the party sought to be bound by the agreement 

understood and accepted the terms and conditions of the 

agreement; and (3) that the agreement be fair and not 

unconscionable, that is, that the agreement will not 

"leave a spouse a public charge or close to it, or ... 

provide a standard of living far below that which was 

enjoyed both before and during the marriage." 

[404 N.J. Super. at 219 (quoting Marschall, 195 N.J. 

Super. at 29–31).]

As already noted, when the parties entered into the PMA, N.J.S.A. 37:2-

32(c) defined an unconscionable agreement as one that "render[ed] a spouse 

without a means of reasonable support[,] . . . would make a spouse a public 
22 A-0631-17T1

charge[,] or . . . would provide a standard of living below that which was enjoyed 

before the marriage." The Act further provided:

A premarital . . . agreement shall not be enforceable if 

the party seeking to set aside the agreement proves, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that:

. . . .

b. The agreement was unconscionable at the time 

enforcement was sought; or

. . . .

d. The issue of unconscionability of a premarital

. . . agreement . . . shall be determined by the 

court as a matter of law. [5]

[N.J.S.A. 37:2–38 (2007).]

The hearing judge found that at the time of enforcement, the PMA as executed 

would leave plaintiff with a standard of living below what she enjoyed before

the marriage and without a reasonable means for support. Rather than declaring 

the PMA unenforceable, the judge embarked on a "rescue" mission. She decided 

to leave the alimony waiver intact and overcome the unenforceable nature of the 

PMA as executed by postponing resolution of essentially all other financial 

5

 The 2013 amendment to the Act deleted subsection (b).
23 A-0631-17T1

issues through possible revisions of other provisions of the PMA after a later 

trial. 

In Rogers, we recognized that a finding of unconscionability does not 

compel scrapping an entire PMA. 404 N.J. Super. at 225. In that case, we noted 

that under the PMA and its later amendment, the defendant-husband would 

receive "equitable distribution of assets acquired during the marriage[,]" and 

real property he obtained in his own name, including the condominium in which 

he resided. Id. at 227. Nevertheless, given the defendant's "substantially 

altered" employment circumstances from his pre-marital status, we affirmed 

setting aside the alimony waiver provisions of the PMA and left the "remainder 

of the agreement . . . in full force and effect." Ibid. 

Here, although plaintiff's employment circumstances changed little from 

those that existed prior to execution of the PMA, undeniably there were 

significant changes from the date of the marriage. The parties had five children 

in less than six years, the oldest of which was only nine when the divorce 

complaint was filed. Plaintiff literally acquired no assets during the marriage, 

while defendant's assets and wealth continued to increase by leaps and bounds. 

In Rogers, we noted "that alimony provisions in prenuptial agreements need not 

'cover all eventualities, since upon changes in circumstances a spouse may apply 
24 A-0631-17T1

to the court for an appropriate modification.'" Id. at 219–20 (quoting D'Onofrio, 

200 N.J. Super. at 369–70). In this case, the PMA was unconscionable when 

defendant sought to enforce its alimony waiver and other provisions because 

there was no correlation between the terms of the agreement and plaintiff's everincreasing economic dependence. Furthermore, the hearing judge's attempts to 

"rescue" the PMA by leaving for another day consideration of other financial 

questions failed to salvage the unconscionability of the agreement.

The trial judge followed the terms of the PMA and awarded plaintiff no 

share of the assets that defendant acquired during the course of this ten-year 

marriage. Instead, the judge tried to overcome the inherently unconscionable 

nature of the agreement by amending those provisions which the hearing judge 

had earlier left undecided. Defendant's primary assertion on appeal is ironically

correct: the disputed provisions of the JOD were attempts to provide some level 

of economic fairness — defendant argues alimony — through "the back door." 

"Alimony is a claim arising upon divorce, which is rooted in the prior 

interdependence occurring during the parties' marital relationship. '[A]limony is 

neither a punishment for the payor nor a reward for the payee.'" Reese v. Weis, 

430 N.J. Super. 552, 569 (App. Div. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Mani 

v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70, 80 (2005)). The bottom line following the trial judge's 
25 A-0631-17T1

efforts to rectify the drastic, unconscionable financial imbalance between the 

parties at the time they executed the PMA, and which only increased during the 

marriage, was a one-time infusion for plaintiff's benefit of $435,000 more than 

provided to her under the terms of the PMA: $10,000 more for her car and 

$425,000 more for a home for her and the children. We conclude that the trial 

judge's efforts were inadequate.

We reverse paragraph 1(a) of the August 2016 order that upheld the 

alimony waiver in the PMA. We remand the matter for further proceedings 

consistent with this and the balance of this opinion. In doing so, the remand 

judge may of course consider the effect, if any, of paragraph 1(c) of the August 

2016 order, which resulted in a lump sum payment to plaintiff of $145,000 in 

accordance with the terms of the PMA. We next consider the further effect of 

our holding.

C.

Plaintiff argues that any remand can be limited to discovery and a plenary 

hearing as to an appropriate alimony award.6 We conclude that the remand 

cannot be so limited.

6

 Plaintiff also argues that the trial judge erroneously amended the PMA to 

permit defendant to reduce his life insurance policy limits upon the 
26 A-0631-17T1

Our courts have long recognized the interrelationship between alimony 

and other financial issues posed by the dissolution of any marriage. See, e.g., 

Steneken v. Steneken, 183 N.J. 290, 299–300 (2005) ("[A]limony and equitable 

distribution are separate yet interrelated and ultimately subject to an overriding 

sense of fairness . . . buttressed by our statutory scheme, where the separate 

powers to award alimony and determine equitable distribution are codified."); 

Brown v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 466, 475 (App. Div. 2002) (recognizing "the 

interrelationship of equitable distribution, alimony, child support, and fee 

awards"); N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) (listing factors to consider in awarding child 

support, including, in subsection (2), the "[s]tandard of living and economic 

circumstances of each parent"); N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b) (listing factors to consider

in awarding of alimony).

The inescapable conclusion is that contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the 

remand hearing cannot be limited solely to the issue of whether she is entitled 

emancipation of each child. We address that in the context of our holding in 

this subsection. We discuss in a separate subsection below plaintiff's ancillary 

argument, i.e., that the elimination of the children's forced share of defendant's 

estate, paragraph 23(b)(6) of the original PMA, is void as against public policy.

 
27 A-0631-17T1

to alimony, and, if so, its amount and duration.7 Consideration of a just, fair,

and equitable alimony award must, by its nature, consider other financial

circumstances and needs. Simply put, we are unable to affirm or reverse on the 

merits other aspects of the JOD challenged by defendant in light of our holding. 

The wisest course requires us to permit the remand court to vacate or modify as 

necessary paragraphs seven, nine, eleven, twelve, and fourteen of the JOD 

pending full consideration of all financial issues. 

We reject, therefore, plaintiff's facial challenge to paragraph fourteen of 

the JOD, which permits defendant to reduce his life insurance obligations as 

each child became emancipated, as being beyond the express terms of the PMA. 

Obviously, "[l]ife insurance policies or trusts are frequently included in final 

judgments of divorce as security for support obligations." Claffey v. Claffey, 

360 N.J. Super. 240, 263 (App. Div. 2003) (citing Jacobitti v. Jacobitti, 135 N.J. 

571, 574–75 (1994)). Because we hazard no prediction about the composite 

financial picture of the parties following remand, we leave that court free to 

fashion an appropriate surety for defendant's obligations.

7

 Because the issue was not addressed by either party, we specifically do not 

consider application of the 2014 revisions to the alimony statute and whether 

they apply to the particular circumstances of this case. See, e.g., Landers v. 

Landers, 444 N.J. Super. 315, 322–24 (App. Div. 2016). The issue is better left 

for the remand judge's consideration.
28 A-0631-17T1

As to defendant's challenge to paragraph fifteen of the JOD awarding 

plaintiff counsel fees, the arguments made lack sufficient merit to warrant 

extensive discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We find no 

mistaken exercise of the judge's discretion. R. 5:3-5(c); Eaton v. Grau, 368 N.J. 

Super. 215, 225 (App. Div. 2004). We affirm that portion of the JOD, without 

prejudice to the remand judge considering the award, and the prior award to 

plaintiff following the plenary hearing, in fashioning a just, fair and equitable 

resolution of all financial issues.

Additionally, we reject defendant's argument that a different judge must 

preside over the remand. We find no merit to defendant's claim of bias, or that 

the same judge would be in an "untenable" position if required to reconsider any 

issue previously decided. Luedtke v. Shobert, 342 N.J. Super. 202, 219 (App. 

Div. 2001).

D.

Plaintiff's other argument raised by cross-appeal is that the elimination of 

paragraph 23(b)(6) of the PMA as a result of the 2007 amendment was void as 

against public policy, because the parties were not free to bargain away the 

inheritance rights of their children, who did not receive any consideration in 

return. The cases cited by plaintiff in support of her argument are inapposite, 
29 A-0631-17T1

since they all deal with a well-recognized principle, i.e., the right to support 

"belongs to the child, not the custodial parent. . . . [P]arents [may not] bargain[]

away the essential rights of their sons and daughters, including the right to be 

properly supported." Patetta v. Patetta, 358 N.J. Super. 90, 94 (App. Div. 2003) 

(citing Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 591 (1995); Blum v. Ader, 279 N.J. 

Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1994)). 

None of the cases cited by plaintiff stand for the proposition that one of 

the parties to a PMA or other marital agreement must accommodate the potential 

needs of his or her children by a bequest from his or her estate. For example, 

plaintiff cites Kiken v. Kiken, 149 N.J. 441 (1997), as authority. However, in 

that case, citing N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a), the Court affirmed the Family Part's order 

directing the deceased husband's estate to contribute to the costs of his son's 

college education, stating only "[n]othing in the statute prevents courts from 

entering such orders after the death of a parent." Id. at 453; accord Fazilat v. 

Feldstein, 180 N.J. 74, 81 (2004). 

More on point is dicta in our decision in Koidl v. Schreiber, where we 

rejected the father's estate's claim that a post-death order continuing child 

support in the absence of a testamentary bequest "amount[ed] to an overturning 

of the will." 214 N.J. Super. 513, 516 (App. Div. 1986). We noted that while 
30 A-0631-17T1

"[s]urviving children have not been given the protection of an elective share[,]"

the children did "not claim a right under the will[.] . . . [T]hey assert[ed] a 

continuing dependency claim against the estate." Ibid. We concluded the trial 

court had the right "to continue support payments after the death of the parent." 

Ibid. 

In short, plaintiff cites no authority for her argument that the elimination 

of paragraph 23(b)(6) from the original PMA by way of the 2007 amendment 

was void as against public policy. Further, during the plenary hearing on the 

enforceability of the PMA, plaintiff never asserted that the amendment itself 

was void for lack of consideration. We refuse to consider that specific argument 

for the first time on appeal. Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 

586 (2012). 

III.

We turn to defendant's remaining arguments.

The trial judge awarded the parties joint legal custody and fixed a 

parenting time schedule that provided plaintiff and defendant equal time with 

the children during the week. The parties reached an agreement with regard to 

other parenting time issues.

8

 By its terms, paragraph five of the JOD permitted 

8

 The agreement is not in the record.
31 A-0631-17T1

each party to "tack[]" a week of vacation parenting time onto regularly 

scheduled parenting time, "thus giving a party more than [seven] consecutive 

days with the children[.]" The judge rejected defendant's request to permit the 

consecutive exercise of both weeks of vacation time, finding the children's 

"frequent contact with both parties, especially based on their young ages[,]" was 

in their best interests.

Defendant contends the trial judge abused his discretion by requiring the 

exercise of vacation parenting time in non-consecutive weeks and thereby 

prohibited defendant from taking the children on vacation to Greece, defendant's 

ancestral homeland. "An abuse of discretion 'arises when a decision is "made 

without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, 

or rested on an impermissible basis."'" Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 

184, 197 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 

561, 571 (2002)). Given our highly deferential standard of review, we reject 

defendant's contention without further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Defendant contends that the trial judge erred by including paragraphs four, 

five, and eleven in the October 2017 post-judgment order on plaintiff's 

enforcement motion. The order clarified that each party was responsible for the 

children's expenses while the children were with them and further required 
32 A-0631-17T1

advance notice to the other party and an itinerary if the children were to be taken 

out of the tri-state area by car or plane. Defendant also challenges the award of 

counsel fees to plaintiff in opposing his motion for a stay and in bringing her 

enforcement motion.

We agree completely with the trial judge's disposition of these two issues

and the fee award. The judge's findings about defendant's recalcitrant positions

regarding the picayune costs of school lunches and other incidental costs for the 

children, defendant's continued tack of trying to relitigate child support and his 

refusal to provide notice regarding the children's out-of-state vacation were all 

amply supported by the record. Once again, given our standard of review, we 

have no reason to reverse or even comment further. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

IV.

To summarize, on plaintiff's cross-appeal, we reverse paragraph 1(a) of 

the August 2016 order and remand for further proceedings. We reject plaintiff's 

facial challenge to the elimination of paragraph 23(b)(6) of the PMA being void 

as against public policy. 

As a result, without reaching the merits of plaintiff's remaining argument 

as to paragraph fourteen of the JOD, and without reaching the merits of 

defendant's arguments, we vacate paragraphs seven, nine, eleven, twelve and 
33 A-0631-17T1

fourteen of the JOD, but stay this portion of our judgment until the trial court's 

resolution and decision on remand, which may modify as appropriate any of 

these provisions of the JOD so as to achieve a fair, reasonable and equitable 

resolution of all financial issues.

We affirm paragraph five of the JOD and the October 2017 order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.