NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5317-18T1
PHILIP EMANUELE,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PATRICIA EMANUELE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted March 11, 2020 – Decided April 3, 2020
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket
No. FM-15-1071-18.
Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, PC, attorneys for appellant
(Ryan S. Malc, on the briefs).
Ansell, Grimm & Aaron PC, attorneys for respondent
(Alfred Michael Caso, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Patricia Emanuele appeals from a July 12, 2019 order granting
plaintiff Philip Emanuele's post-judgment motion to correct a provision of the
parties' matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA), pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(a).
We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
The parties were married for nearly forty-three years, their children were
emancipated, and each party was collecting comparable social security income
while residing in separate residences at the time they entered into the MSA. As
a result, the MSA contained a mutual waiver of alimony and primarily addressed
equitable distribution.
Paragraph 3.1(2) of the MSA stated:
As of April 2, 2018, [t]he marital residence was
encumbered by a [h]ome [e]quity [l]ine [o]f [c]redit
(HELOC) [with] a balance of $190,763.44. The
[plaintiff] borrowed $168,000.00 against the HELOC
for moving expenses and the [defendant] borrowed
$22,763.44 for moving expenses. The [plaintiff] also
borrowed $55,200.00 ($27,600.00 of which belonged to
[defendant]) from the joint Imn. Bank account for a
down payment of home expenses. The [defendant] has
liquidated an additional $191,871.00 ($95,935.50
belonged to [plaintiff]) in joint bonds to purchase her
residence. Thus the [plaintiff] has liquidated $195,600
($168,000 + $27,600) of joint assets to purchase his
residence and the [defendant] has liquidated
$118,698.50 ($22,763 + $95,935.50) of joint assets to
purchase her residence. This results in the [plaintiff]
owing [defendant] $76,901.00 so they may equalize the
advances on equitable distribution.
A-5317-18T1
2
The parties also agreed to equally divide their retirement accounts, an annuity,
two bank accounts, the cash surrender value of a life insurance policy insuring
defendant, and refunds on any jointly filed tax returns.
Plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion alleging a mutual mistake in
paragraph 3.1(2) of the MSA. He certified as follows:
The sentence that says "[defendant] has liquidated
$118,698.50 ($22,763 + $95,935.50)" should state
"[defendant] has liquidated $214,634.44 ($22,763.44 +
$191,871).["]
....
The MSA math calculation then continues incorrectly
to state[:] "This results in [plaintiff] owing [defendant]
$76,901.00 so they may equalize the advances on
equitable distribution." Clearly, neither the
[d]efendant, [nor] myself realized that the math was
wrong.
Plaintiff claimed he did not owe defendant $76,901, and instead owed $4391.99,
to equalize the advances on equitable distribution.
The motion judge agreed. Regarding paragraph 3.1(2), he stated:
This paragraph as written evinces a clear mistake
of math which is clearly evident without having to refer
to any extrinsic evidence. The amounts sought to be
divided and equalized were the HELOC of
$190,763.44; the joint Imn. Bank account of
$55,200.00 and joint bonds of $191,871.00 for a total
of $432,834.44. Assuming an equal division, each
should have received $219,417.22. The [plaintiff]
A-5317-18T1
3
received $168,000.00 and $55,200.00 for a total of
$223,200.00 or $3[]782.78 more than he should
have. . . . Consequently [p]aragraph 3.1(2) of the
parties['] [M]SA shall be modified to reflect that the
[plaintiff] owes the [defendant] $3[]782.78 as opposed
to $76,901.00.
On appeal, defendant argues the judge's finding of a mutual mistake was
erroneous because the parties disputed whether the responsibility for the sums
taken on the HELOC should be divided equally during settlement negotiations.
Defendant asserts the MSA identified all advances against equitable distribution
including the HELOC, which therefore evidences the parties' intent to exclude
the HELOC from being divided equally as their other assets and liabilities. She
asserts a plenary hearing is necessary to resolve the parties' conflicting
understanding of the MSA.
Rule 4:50-1 "is designed to reconcile the strong interests in finality of
judgments and judicial efficiency with the equitable notion that courts should
have authority to avoid an unjust result in any given case." Manning Eng'g, Inc.
v. Hudson Cty. Park Comm'n, 74 N.J. 113, 120 (1977) (citing Hodgson v.
Applegate, 31 N.J. 29, 43 (1959)). Therefore,
[a] motion under Rule 4:50-1 is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court, which should be guided by
equitable principles in determining whether relief
should be granted or denied. The decision granting or
denying an application to open a judgment will be left
A-5317-18T1
4
undisturbed unless it represents a clear abuse of
discretion.
[Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283
(1994) (internal citations omitted).]
In pertinent part, Rule 4:50-1 states "[o]n motion, with briefs, and upon such
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative
from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (a) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (emphasis added.)
The judge did not err in correcting the mathematics in paragraph 3.1(2).
The MSA clearly evinces the parties' intent for an equal equitable distribution.
Defendant's assertion the parties intended to divide the sums taken on the
HELOC differently is unsupported.
The judge was not required to consider extrinsic evidence or have a
plenary hearing to resolve this dispute. We previously stated:
"A basic principle of contract interpretation is to read
the document as a whole in a fair and common sense
manner." Hardy ex. rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 198
N.J. 95, 103 (2009). . . .
[I]n interpreting an agreement, we "must try to
ascertain the intention of the parties as revealed by the
language used, the situation of the parties, the attendant
circumstances, and the objects the parties were striving
to attain." Celanese Ltd. v. Essex Cty. Imp. Auth., 404
N.J. Super. 514, 528 (App. Div. 2009) (citing
A-5317-18T1
5
Onderdonk v. Presbyterian Homes of N.J., 85 N.J. 171,
183-84 (1981)).
. . . However, "[i]f the terms of the contract are
susceptible to at least two reasonable alternative
interpretations, an ambiguity exists. In that case, a
court may look to extrinsic evidence as an aid to
interpretation." Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 195 N.J. 231, 238 (2008) (internal
citations omitted).
[Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J. Super. 18, 31-32 (App. Div.
2011) (second alteration in original).]
Paragraph 3.1(2) was not susceptible to two different interpretations and
instead contained a clear mathematical error. For these reasons, we affirm the
judge's decision to grant relief pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(a) without a plenary
hearing.
Notwithstanding, our review of the judge's findings reveals a
mathematical error. The judge determined the HELOC, joint Imn. Bank
account, and joint bonds totaled to $432,834.44 and equally divided to
$218,917.22. He concluded because plaintiff received $223,200, he received an
excess of $3782.78. However, the HELOC, Imn. Bank account, and joint bonds
totaled to $437,834.44. Therefore, because plaintiff received $223,200, he
received an excess of $4282.78. For these reasons, we reverse and direct the
motion judge to enter an order reflecting the corrected amounts.
A-5317-18T1
6
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
A-5317-18T1
7