THE BERNARDS-RIDGE CONNECTION PAGE 13 SEPT/OCT/NOV 2026 theconnectionsnj.com Handling family law matters throughout New Jersey Sometimes Happily Ever After Needs a Rewrite. Not all stories have a fairytale ending. Our attorneys have the legal know-how and national firm resources it takes to design a successful strategy for complex, high net worth divorces.* Dedicated. Driven. Committed to helping you turn the page.* Eric Solotoff esolotoff@foxrothschild.com 973.994.7501 Jessica Diamond Lia jlia@foxrothschild.com 973.994.7517 Morristown | Princeton | Atlantic City *Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. hen couples divorce, their settlement agreements often try to plan years ahead for things like a child’s college education. But what happens when the words chosen to describe that plan turn out to mean different things to different people? A recent, unpublished New Jersey appellate decision, Fuller v. Fuller, offers an instructive real-world example. The couple divorced in 2007, and their marital settlement agreement included a fairly standard clause: As each child approached their junior year of high school, the parents would meet to discuss potential colleges and costs, with expenses capped at roughly the cost to attend Kean University, a relatively affordable private school. The agreement assumed the children would take out loans, with the parents covering costs only after financial aid was applied. Dispute Arises Over Student Loans Years later, in 2018, the parents entered a consent order clarifying that the children would first apply for financial aid, including “reasonable student loans,” and Dad would cover whatever college costs remained after that aid was applied. The children began taking out loans, with dad co-signing. By 2019, Mom raised concerns about the size of the debt, and Dad suggested she could “feel free to help.” By 2023, each child owed roughly $50,000 in loans, and mom’s attorney argued dad had improperly shifted the entire financial burden onto the children. Dad’s side countered that he had already paid close to $50,000 toward college costs. Mom then went to court, claiming Dad had willfully violated the consent order. The trial judge disagreed, finding the order’s language clear and unambiguous. She appealed and lost again. Key Takeaways The Appellate Division’s reasoning offers a useful lesson for anyone entering a settlement agreement: courts generally will not rewrite a contract or hand one side a better deal than they actually negotiated. When the language is clear, judges must enforce it as written. This holds true even if one party later regrets the wording. A hearing to interpret disputed language is only available when there’s genuine ambiguity, not just dissatisfaction with an outcome. Here, Mom never proved the loans were actually “unreasonable,” offering no expert testimony comparing interest rates or loan terms to what was otherwise available. The case underscores a common theme in divorce planning: many parents want their children to have “skin in the game” when it comes to college costs, and it’s common for settlement agreements to reference federal student loans specifically, often capped near $5,500 per year. But using vague terms like “reasonable” can leave room for future disputes if they are not defined up front. If parents want to cap loan amounts, restrict loan types or guarantee a particular division of costs, the agreement needs to say so explicitly. The takeaway for anyone drafting or relying on a settlement agreement is simple: precision now can prevent costly, and often unsuccessful, litigation later. For more information regarding divorce in New Jersey, contact Morristown-based Fox Rothschild Family Law attorneys Eric S. Solotoff at esolotoff@foxrothschild.com or (973) 994-7501 or Jessica Diamond Lia at jlia@foxrothschild.com or (973) 994-7517. LAWYER’SVIEW When ‘Reasonable’ Isn’t Clear: A Cautionary Tale for Divorcing Parents By Eric S. Solotoff and Jessica Diamond Lia W
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzA2NDY0