## Facts

- Antonio Pacelli (husband) and Francesca Pacelli (wife) married in 1975; he was a successful builder/real estate developer (and restaurant owner), and she was a homemaker with no earned income.
- The parties enjoyed a high standard of living, with reported gross income exceeding $475,000 in the mid-1980s.
- About ten years into the marriage, the husband demanded a written agreement fixing equitable distribution and alimony terms if divorce occurred and told the wife he would divorce her if she did not sign.
- To reinforce the ultimatum, the husband moved out of the marital bedroom into an apartment above the garage.
- The husband consulted matrimonial counsel and disclosed a then-net worth of approximately $4.7 million; his counsel advised that enforceability required fairness and full disclosure and that the wife should have counsel.
- The wife consulted independent counsel, was advised of her divorce rights, and was advised not to sign, but signed because she wanted to preserve the marriage and family life.
- The agreement provided the wife a $500,000 lump sum upon dissolution plus limited additional benefits, despite the husband’s multimillion-dollar wealth.
- By the time divorce was later litigated, the husband’s net worth exceeded $11 million, while the agreement’s fixed economic terms remained unchanged.

## Issues

1. Whether a mid-marriage agreement demanded under an explicit “sign or I will divorce you” ultimatum is enforceable when the surrounding circumstances indicate coercive pressure despite independent counsel and disclosure.
2. Whether such an agreement must be fair both at the time of execution and at the time of enforcement to be judicially enforced.
3. Whether an agreement that significantly limits a dependent spouse’s economic rights in a high-asset marriage is substantively unfair and therefore unenforceable.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order enforcing the mid-marriage agreement.
- The court held the agreement unenforceable because it was obtained through inherently coercive pressure and was unfair both when executed and when enforced.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine economic issues without giving the agreement controlling effect.

## Legal Principles

- Marital settlement agreements are enforceable only if they are voluntary and fair and are subject to close judicial scrutiny, especially where one spouse is economically dominant.
- Mid-marriage agreements entered during an intact marriage and induced by an explicit divorce ultimatum are inherently suspect because the threatened spouse may feel compelled to accept terms to avoid family disruption.
- Independent counsel and financial disclosure, while important, do not by themselves cure coercion where the bargaining structure effectively forces a choice between signing and immediate divorce.
- Enforceability requires substantive fairness at two points: when the agreement is made and when it is enforced.
- Courts will not enforce agreements that unreasonably strip a dependent spouse of statutory protections of equitable distribution and alimony through grossly disproportionate terms.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a mid-marriage property settlement agreement where the husband demanded signature under a divorce ultimatum and the terms gave the dependent wife a disproportionate recovery compared to the marital estate, rendering the agreement involuntary in context and unfair at both execution and enforcement.


Pacelli v. Pacelli, 725 A.2d 56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999)