Sachau v. Sachau, 206 N.J. 1 (2011). In Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258 (2007), the Supreme Court held that where a divorce agreement provides that the sale of a marital home is to abide a future event, such as the coming of age of a child, and no alternative is provided, the value to be ascribed to the home is presumed to be its value as of the date of the triggering event. Pacifico involved a sale that took place on the triggering date. In Sachau, however, the parties did not invoke their rights under a similar provision, which was also silent about valuation, until 22 years after the triggering event. The question in Sachau was whether, in those circumstances, the home was to be valued as of the triggering event, which occurred in 1984, or as of 2008, the date of the sale.
In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the date of the sale was the appropriate valuation date. After discussing general principles of construing and interpreting matrimonial agreements, the Court discussed Pacifico in depth. The Court then concluded that “[t]here is plainly no rationale for a presumption of value as of the trigger date if [unlike in Pacifico] no sale occurs.” Citing Wadlow v. Wadlow, 200 N.J. Super. 372, 385 (App. Div. 1985), the Court held that, in this circumstance, “in the absence of an agreement by the parties to the contrary, marital property that is to be sold should be valued as of the date of the sale.” The Court therefore reversed the decision below and remanded to the Family Part to reevaluate its conclusions in light of the 2008 valuation date and to distribute the proceeds accordingly.
This was an unusual Supreme Court case in that one of the parties, the unsuccessful respondent, argued pro se. She was represented by a well-known matrimonial law firm, but chose to argue the case herself.