## Facts

- Jacqueline Massar and Cyril J. Massar, both in second marriages, married on November 25, 1988, after executing a prenuptial agreement.
- As the marriage deteriorated, the spouses signed a post-marital agreement on April 30, 1993.
- Under that agreement, Cyril agreed to vacate the marital home, and Jacqueline agreed not to seek dissolution “for any reason other than eighteen months continuous separation.”
- At the time, New Jersey’s no-fault divorce statute required 18 months’ continuous separation before a no-fault divorce could be granted.
- Cyril moved out pursuant to the agreement.
- On October 1, 1993, about five to six months later, Jacqueline filed a divorce complaint alleging extreme cruelty.
- The complaint described verbal confrontations and conflicts, but did not allege conduct that was materially different from, or worse than, conduct occurring before the April 30 agreement.
- Cyril moved to dismiss the fault-based complaint and to enforce the parties’ agreements.
- The Chancery Division enforced the April 30 agreement, dismissed the extreme-cruelty complaint, and permitted Jacqueline to file an action for separate maintenance.
- Jacqueline appealed, arguing that enforcing the agreement to bar a fault-based divorce was contrary to public policy and that the agreement should not be enforced due to duress/overreaching.

## Issues

1. Whether a post-marital agreement limiting a spouse to seeking divorce only on a no-fault ground after 18 months’ continuous separation is unenforceable as against public policy.
2. Whether the agreement was invalid due to duress or lack of voluntariness.
3. Whether enforcing the agreement improperly deprives a spouse of statutory remedies, including access to fault-based divorce grounds.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order enforcing the April 30, 1993 agreement and dismissing the extreme-cruelty divorce complaint.
- The court held that such an agreement is not per se void as against public policy when voluntarily made, supported by consideration, and not eliminating access to judicial relief.
- The court agreed that Jacqueline did not prove duress or other equitable grounds sufficient to invalidate the agreement.
- The court emphasized that Jacqueline could pursue separate maintenance during the waiting period and could seek a no-fault divorce after the 18-month separation period.

## Legal Principles

- Marital agreements, including post-marital agreements, are generally enforceable if voluntary, supported by consideration, fair in operation, and not contrary to public policy.
- An agreement that channels dissolution into a statutory no-fault framework, without permanently barring divorce, may be consistent with legislative policy favoring reflection and reduced acrimony before dissolution.
- An agreement restricting divorce grounds is less likely to offend public policy where it does not foreclose court access for economic relief (such as support) during any required waiting period.
- Independent legal representation and the absence of coercion weigh strongly against claims of duress or overreaching.
- Where a spouse agrees to limit divorce grounds based on then-known circumstances and later alleges no materially new or escalated post-agreement misconduct, enforcement is more likely.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division enforced a post-marital agreement restricting divorce to a no-fault ground after 18 months’ separation, finding no public-policy bar and insufficient proof of duress, and it upheld dismissal of a fault-based divorce complaint while preserving access to separate maintenance and later no-fault dissolution.


Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89 (App. Div. 1995)