Legal Opinion

V.J.S. v. M.J.B.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided April 30, 1991PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KRAFTE, J.S.C.

It is axiomatic that, given proper proof, a party will be entitled to an annulment when the spouse refuses to have children. This court now finds that the converse is also true, i.e., given proper proof, a party will be entitled to an annulment when the spouse insists on having children, contrary to the express agreement of the parties prior to marriage that they would not have children.

On the representation of defendant that he was in agreement with plaintiff’s wish not to have children, plaintiff married him on September 23, 1989. Subsequent to the parties’ wedding ceremony…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lindquist v. LindquistNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941
  2. Ysern v. HorterNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
  3. Akrep v. AkrepSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1949
  4. Pisciotta v. BuccinoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
  5. Williams v. WittNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SantolinoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
  2. Mario Phuong Todorov, V. Hanh Phuong HaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2022
  3. Vjs v. MjbNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API