SUMMIT DIVORCE ATTORNEY

They agreed his stock options were worth $184,000 for equitable distribution purposes. But 11 days after signing off on this deal, the ex-husband changed his mind and sought to revoke this part of their agreement. Using a new valuation expert, he argued the stock options were worthless. Without a hearing, the Family Part judge granted the ex-wife's motion to enforce and denied the ex-husband's motion for reformation. The Appellate Division affirmed because the parties' certifications did not raise a genuine factual dispute as to whether there was mistake or fraud. Both parties were well-educated and well-represented. Moreover, the ex-husband sought to obtain the benefits to which he was entitled under their agreement. Although he was in control of the asset which he later claimed was undervalued, he had been in the best position to determine the true value of the stock options prior to negotiations. He showed no fraud or other inequitable conduct on the part of the ex-wife in the negotiations.    Minervini v. Minervini, New Jersey App. Div., March 12, 2007