Title: Ginger Pacifico v. James Paul Pacifico
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-61-06
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: April 18, 2007

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). When the youngest child reached the age of emancipation, James filed a post-judgment motion to compel the listing and sale of the property. Ginger filed a cross-motion to buy out James interest for one-half of the $167,000 value that had been established by a broker s market analysis in 1996. Both Ginger and James provided certifications regarding their respective understanding of the provision in the PSA concerning the sale of the marital home. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge ruled that Ginger s right to a buy-out was to be at current market value when exercised. Ginger appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the PSA was ambiguous because it did not specify the price at which the parties could exercise their respective buy-out options. Because the parties offered conflicting proofs concerning the meaning of that provision, and because the court determined that James attorney drafted the agreement, the Appellate Division held that any ambiguity should be construed in Ginger s favor. The panel further concluded that a plenary hearing was required. Only James and Ginger testified at the hearing and their testimony was consistent with the facts each set forth in their prior certifications. James stated that the 1996 valuation was obtained to establish the value of the asset because he thought he might sell the home at that time. He ultimately chose not to sell and remained co- owner with Ginger. James further testified that the parties never agreed to freeze Ginger s buy-out at the 1996 valuation, and she made no concessions warranting such an outcome. Rather, the agreement was to sell the house at market value when one of the enumerated triggering events occurred. Ginger reiterated her contention that the parties agreed that she could buy the house at the 1996 value upon the emancipation of her youngest son. She testified that in exchange for the insider price, among other things, she gave James the tax and mortgage interest deductions. She also pointed to a draft of the agreement that referenced the 1996 value. Various drafts of the PSA were received into evidence. James attorney prepared the first and third drafts, while Ginger s attorney drafted the second version. At the conclusion of the plenary hearing, the trial judge found that the PSA was ambiguous and that, in accordance with the Appellate Division s instructions, the ambiguity had to be construed in Ginger s favor because James lawyer drafted the contract. The judge further determined that Ginger had to buy out James interest in the marital residence for one-half of $167,000, less the mortgage balance on May 27, 2003. The judge made no findings in respect of the parties intentions or credibility. James appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed, reasserting its previous view that because the PSA did not establish value and two prior drafts referenced different values, the PSA was ambiguous and should be interpreted against James, whose lawyer drafted it. The Supreme Court granted James petition for certification. HELD: The doctrine of contra proferentem (which provides that when a contract term is ambiguous, a court is required to adopt the meaning that is most favorable to the non-drafting party) should not have been applied in this case. 1. Courts should enforce contracts as the parties intended and, when necessary, must determine and implement the common intention of the parties. When the parties to a contract have not agreed in respect of term that is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term that is reasonable under the circumstances is supplied by the court. Generally, this occurs when the parties failed to agree regarding an issue that was not anticipated or was overlooked. Because the parties disagree over their understanding regarding the buy-out value, the Appellate Division was correct in ordering the plenary hearing to enable the trial judge to probe the parties intent at the time of the divorce. However, the Court disagrees with the panel s instructions to the trial court regarding the remand. (Pp. 7-10) 2. The Appellate Division erred in directing the trial judge to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem, which provides that when a contract term is ambiguous, the doctrine requires a court to adopt the meaning that is most favorable to the non-drafting party. First, the appellate panel oversimplified the matrimonial settlement process by concluding that James lawyer drafted the PSA. The fourth and final draft was essentially the third draft with handwritten notes that reflected Ginger s changes. Rarely is one party s version accepted without negotiation and input from the other. Thus, no singular drafter within the meaning of the doctrine of contra proferentem penned the agreement in this case. Second, the Appellate Division failed to recognize that, even if James lawyer had drafted the PSA, the doctrine of contra proferentem does not apply because a prerequisite to its application unequal bargaining power did not exist. (Pp. 10-12) 3. Because the doctrine of contra proferentem should not have been applied in this case, the Appellate Division s judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial judge to evaluate the evidence that was previously adduced at the hearing under the standards referred to by the Court. All inferences need not be drawn in Ginger s favor. Moreover, the trial judge should be mindful of the burden of persuasion. Ginger, as the cross-movant seeking to obtain judicial approval to exercise an option to purchase the marital home at the 1996 value, should bear the burden of establishing that that was the intent of the parties. Ginger should also bear the burden of proof because she is attempting to exclude $137,000 worth of joint marital property from distribution. If Ginger satisfies her burden, she is entitled to relief. If she does not, or if the evidence is in equipoise, her application should fail. The parties credibility and intentions at the time of the drafting of the PSA will be a pivotal factor on remand. (Pp. 12-14) Judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the trial judge for proceedings consistent with the principles to which we have adverted. CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join in JUSTICE LONG S opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 61 September Term 2006 GINGER PACIFICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES PAUL PACIFICO, Defendant-Appellant. Argued February 13, 2007 Decided April 18, 2007 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. John E. Lanza argued the cause for appellant (Lanza &amp; Lanza, attorneys; Kenneth W. Thomas, on the brief). George G. Gussis argued the cause for respondent. JUSTICE LONG delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff, Ginger Pacifico (now Gaspari) and defendant, James Pacifico, were married in 1978 and divorced in 1997. At the time of their divorce, the parties two sons, Anthony and Jason, lived with Ginger in the marital home. Pursuant to a property settlement agreement (PSA) dated December 2, 1996, that was incorporated into the final judgment of divorce, James was to pay Ginger child support of $435 a week and permanent alimony of $100 a week. Ginger, who was unemployed, was to remain in the marital home with the boys and was responsible for the mortgage, property taxes, and homeowners insurance, to be paid out of the support provided by James. The PSA further stated that the parties would hold the marital premises as joint tenants with right of survivorship until it was sold and that: [t]he marital residence shall be sold upon the first happening of any of the following events: 1) Youngest child s attainment of the age of 19; . . . Upon the first happening of any of the foregoing events, the Wife shall have the first option to purchase the interest of the Husband. Should the Wife not choose to exercise this option, the Husband shall then have the same option. If neither party desires to purchase the other s interest the Real Estate shall be listed with a licensed Real Estate broker to be sold and the Real Estate shall be sold. Upon payment from the proceeds of the sale of the house of the outstanding mortgage, Real Estate commissions, transfer tax, recording fees, reasonable attorney s fees, the Wife shall be responsible for all outstanding property taxes or entitled for a credit for overpayment. . .. Any debt/lien attaching to the property as a result of any action or inaction by Husband or Wife shall be deducted from that party s portion of the proceeds. See footnote 1 On Jason s emancipation, James filed a post-judgment motion to compel the listing and sale of the property. Ginger filed a cross-motion to buy out James interest for one-half of the $167,000 value that had been established by a broker s market analysis in 1996. Ginger certified that her understanding was that the PSA gave her the right of first refusal at the 1996 value in return for her obligation to pay all of the carrying charges on the house although allowing James to take all of the tax benefits. James certified that he obtained the 1996 market analysis merely to assist him in deciding whether to sell to a third party at the time of the divorce. Furthermore, James contended that the tax benefits served to off-set the child support and the alimony he agreed to provide Ginger, and also as an acknowledgement of his decision to permit Ginger to live in the house until their youngest son reached nineteen years of age. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge ruled that Ginger s right to a buy-out was to be at current market value when exercised. See footnote 2 Ginger appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the PSA was ambiguous because it did not specify the price at which the parties could exercise their respective buy-out options. Because the parties offered conflicting proofs concerning the meaning of the provision, and because the panel found that James attorney drafted the agreement, it held that any ambiguity would be construed in Ginger s favor. Moreover, the panel stated that [g]iving Ginger the benefit of all favorable inferences from the evidence, a factfinder could conclude that the agreement should be construed as she contends, and thus, a plenary hearing was required. At the hearing, only James and Ginger testified. Their testimony was consistent with the facts each set forth in their prior certifications. James maintained that the 1996 market valuation was obtained to establish the value of the asset because he contemplated selling it at that time. See footnote 3 Ultimately, he chose not to do so because he did not want to uproot his sons. Therefore, he remained a co-owner of the house and allowed Ginger and their sons to live there. Furthermore, James testified that the parties never agreed to freeze Ginger s buy-out at the 1996 figure, and she made no concessions warranting such an outcome. Rather, the agreement was to sell the house at market value when one of the enumerated triggering events occurred. Ginger reiterated her position that the parties agreed that she could purchase the house at the 1996 valuation upon the emancipation of her youngest son. Again, she explained that, in exchange for the insider price, among other things, she gave James the tax and mortgage interest deductions. She also pointed to a draft of the agreement that referenced the 1996 value. At the plenary hearing, various drafts of the PSA were received into evidence. See footnote 4 James attorney prepared the first draft. It provided that the marital residence would be sold upon the first happening of either the death of Ginger or the emancipation of the youngest son. Under that version, Ginger also had the first option to purchase the interest of James at the best price attainable, an apparent reference to the current market value at the time of the triggering event. Ginger s attorney prepared the second draft. That draft also contemplated Ginger s continued residence in the marital home. It read: Husband agrees to convey to the wife by way of quantum deed all right, title, claim and interest he may have in and to the property. At that time the wife shall give to the husband a mortgage in the amount of one-half of the equity at the time of the divorce. In other words, that draft provided that James would transfer the house to Ginger at the time of divorce subject to a mortgage securing his one-half interest in the house. In addition, on the emancipation of their youngest child, Ginger was entitled to purchase the interest of [James]. If she chose not to do so, the house was to be sold. Ginger argued that under that version, James interest was frozen at the 1996 value. Because the parties apparently could not agree, James lawyer drafted a third version. That draft was the basis for the final PSA, but was subject to further negotiation, as reflected in the numerous handwritten interlineations present in the final draft. It included the provision in the final PSA that is at issue here. After the plenary hearing, the trial judge concluded that the PSA was ambiguous and that, in accordance with the Appellate Division s instructions, the ambiguity had to be construed in Ginger s favor because James lawyer drafted the contract. He also held that plaintiff is to buy out defendant s interest in the marital residence for one-half of $167,000, less the mortgage balance on May 27, 2003. See footnote 5 In ruling, the judge made no findings regarding the parties intentions or credibility. James appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed, reasserting its previous view that because the PSA did not establish value and two prior drafts referenced different values, the PSA was ambiguous and should be interpreted against James, whose lawyer drafted it. James filed a petition for certification that we granted. 188 N.J. 576 (2006). I. James argues that the trial judge correctly supplied the valuation date in his initial judgment; that the Appellate Division erred in concluding the PSA was ambiguous; that even if the PSA was ambiguous, the Appellate Division required the trial judge to apply an entirely incorrect interpretative rationale; and that, at the very least, the case should be remanded for necessary credibility findings. Ginger counters that the evidence supported the 1996 valuation date and that the Appellate Division s decision to interpret the ambiguity against James, the drafter, was correct. II. The basic contractual nature of matrimonial agreements has long been recognized. Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39, 46 (App. Div. 1995)(citing Peterson v. Peterson, 85 N.J. 638, 642 (1981); Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89, 93 (App. Div. 1995)), certif. denied, 142 N.J. 455 (1995). At the same time, the law grants particular leniency to agreements made in the domestic arena, thus allowing judges greater discretion when interpreting such agreements. Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 542 (App. Div. 1992). As a general rule, courts should enforce contracts as the parties intended. Henchy v. City of Absecon, 148 F. Supp. 2d 435, 439 (D.N.J. 2001); Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36, 43 (1960). Similarly, it is a basic rule of contractual interpretation that a court must discern and implement the common intention of the parties. Tessmar v. Grosner, 23 N.J. 193, 201 (1957). The court s role is to consider what is written in the context of the circumstances at the time of drafting and to apply a rational meaning in keeping with the expressed general purpose. Northern Airlines, Inc. v. Schwimmer, 12 N.J. 293, 302 (1953); accord Dontzin v. Myer, 301 N.J. Super. 501, 507 (App. Div. 1997). That is the backdrop for our inquiry. III. James argues that the trial judge was initially correct in supplying the 2003 valuation date, which James characterizes as a missing term. However, this is not a missing term case. Indeed, the Restatement Second of Contracts 204 provides [w]hen the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 204 (1981)(emphasis added). As that section and its commentary reveal, it is intended to be applied in cases in which the parties failed to agree regarding an issue, generally because they did not anticipate that it would arise or merely overlooked it. Id. 204 cmts. (1981). In the present case, neither party argues that no agreement existed regarding the valuation date when the PSA was executed. On the contrary, both contend that, when they signed the agreement, there was a clear understanding between them regarding the buy-out value to be ascribed to the house. The problem is that they disagree, in retrospect, over what that understanding was. It thus fell to the trial judge to discern the parties intent at the time of the divorce by probing their positions at an evidentiary hearing. We understand the judge s initial inclination to rule that the 2003 value would apply in light of the fact that nothing in the PSA suggested otherwise. Had no conflicting certifications been filed, and had the parties been willing to stand or fall on the agreement itself, that might have been a fair approach. However, Ginger certified that the parties fully intended the 1996 value to be operative, that she made concessions to obtain that value, that a prior draft included that value and that, in effect, its absence was a scrivener s error. James countered that Ginger did not make any concessions that would have justified the 1996 value and alleged that a sale at market value upon a triggering event was what was agreed upon. Under the circumstances, the judge had no alternative but to conduct an evidentiary hearing at which the parties credibility could be assessed and their intentions gleaned. The Appellate Division was thus correct in ordering that hearing. We part company from the Appellate panel in connection with its concomitant instructions to the trial judge regarding the remand. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-61 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court GINGER PACIFICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES PAUL PACIFICO, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED April 18, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Long CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY