In a case that required the court to interpret a statutory amendment from 30 years ago—and which saw a young litigator make his first appellate argument in New Jersey in a dispute among his relatives—the Appellate Division held that a third-party creditor can’t go after land owned jointly by spouses.

Before the enactment of N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4 in 1988, “case law in our state had authorized courts to compel the partition and sale of a spouse’s interests in property held in a tenancy by the entirety, in instances where equitable considerations justified such a remedy,” the Appellate Division said Tuesday in Jimenez v. Jimenez, a published decision.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]