A court should be particularly cautious about making subjective judgments which aid the conspirators in giving effect to their fraud and as a practical matter ratify the fraud

A court should be particularly cautious about making subjective judgments which aid the conspirators in giving effect to their fraud and as a practical matter ratify the fraud | NJ Family Issues:

Law Lessons from MARGARITA GUZMAN, f/k/a MARGARITA BAUTISTA v. DARIO BAUTISTA, App. Div., A-2617-09T3, June 15, 2011:

It is beyond peradventure that a court may reform a PSA if there is evidence of fraud, overreaching, or other unconscionable conduct by a party. Miller, supra, 160 N.J. at 419; see also, e.g., Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 542 (App. Div. 1992) (reforming PSA where attorney representing wife was related to husband and had previously represented him). In Von Pein v. Von Pein, 268 N.J. Super. 7, 15-17 (App. Div. 1993), we set aside a PSA specifically upon demonstration that the husband concealed various investment accounts and did not identify their existence in discovery. It is equally axiomatic that when a party’s claims of fraud are disputed, as they were in this case, a plenary hearing is necessary to “look beyond the four corners of the [PSA],” and resolve the factual disputes. Conforti, supra, 128 N.J. at 327.

Read More: