What type of legal authority is there to substantiate the argument that a court has a judicial responsibility to monitor the status of spousal support agreements?
In the case of Petersen v. Petersen, 85 N.J. 638 (1981), the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the enforcement of a PSA can only be made when it is fair and equitable. Moreover, the Peterson court noted that spousal support agreements are subject to “judicial supervision,” and that the courts always have control over whether to enforce or modify an agreement. The court further noted that the supervisory role is to assure that only fair agreements are enforced. In summary, a court has equitable powers to enforce a spousal support agreement only if it is found to be unfair and inequitable. The family courts are not interested in me enforcement spousal support agreements that are not fair or equitable. 3. How does a person challenge a spousal support agreement when there are no Lepis “change of circumstances” have occurred. If a person does not have any Lepis changes of circumstances, then he must allege that the spousal support agreement is no longer fair and equitable. Moreover, th
Related Questions
- What type of legal authority is there to substantiate the argument that a court has a judicial responsibility to monitor the status of spousal support agreements?
- Did the court have jurisdiction, i.e., legal authority to decide the case?
- What is the legal status of the Solicitors Regulation Authority?
