New Jersey Family Law Appeals Blog

Led by Brian G. Paul, Esq.
Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney | Co-Managing Partner
Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C.

Ex Refuses to Sign the Deed? NJ Court Rules for Enforcement

·

A divorce judgment should provide finality. It is a binding court order that dictates who gets what and what must be done. Yet for many, the biggest battle begins after the judgment is signed.

What happens when your divorce order states the marital home must be sold, but your ex-spouse refuses to sign the listing agreement? What if you were awarded a vehicle, but your ex will not sign over the title?

This kind of tactical obstruction is more than frustrating—it is a direct violation of your litigant’s rights. Fortunately, New Jersey’s Court Rules provide a powerful, two-part toolkit for breaking this gridlock and forcing compliance.

The Court’s Duty: An Order Is Not a “Suggestion”

Let us start with a core principle: New Jersey courts demand compliance. They view the willful defiance of a court order as an erosion of the judicial system’s authority.

The Appellate Division has repeatedly embraced this principle. In Roselin v. Roselin, 208 N.J. Super. 612 (App. Div. 1986), the court confirmed that judges have the power to fashion practical remedies to enforce their orders against a defiant party, such as by appointing a receiver or directing a party to participate in a sale. This principle was sharpened in Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012), where the Appellate Division affirmed a trial judge’s conclusion that “there is a need to maintain the ‘integrity and enforceability’ of the court’s orders, ‘otherwise they become suggestions or recommendations.’”

That means trial judges have a duty to act when an order is ignored. Two rules typically form the foundation of that enforcement effort.

Tool 1: Coercive Relief Under Rule 1:10-3

The most common enforcement tool is a motion under Rule 1:10-3 (Relief to Litigant). This motion is coercive, not punitive. Its goal is not to punish your ex for past defiance, but to compel them to comply with the order moving forward.

When you file this motion, you ask the court to find the other party in violation of litigant’s rights for failing to obey a court order. If the court finds a violation, it can impose remedies to compel compliance, including:

Rule 1:10-3 is particularly effective for enforcing support obligations like alimony or child support. But when the issue is a refusal to sign a document—Rule 1:10-3 can be a blunt instrument. You do not just want pressure—you want the house sold or the title transferred.

That is where the second tool becomes essential.

Tool 2: Direct Enforcement When Your Ex Refuses to Sign (Rule 4:59-2(a))

When the problem is a failure to perform a specific act—like signing a deed, title, or listing agreement—Rule 4:59-2(a) provides a more direct and effective remedy.

Many attorneys focus solely on Rule 1:10-3. But when the issue is a refusal to sign a required document, Rule 4:59-2(a) is the more precise—and often overlooked—solution.

The rule is titled “Judgment for Specific Acts.” It provides:

“If a judgment or order directs a party to perform a specific act and the party fails to comply... the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of such defaulting party by some other person appointed by the court, and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the defaulting party.”

This rule allows the court to remove your ex-spouse from the equation entirely.

How Rule 4:59-2(a) Works in Practice

Suppose your Judgment of Divorce states the marital home must be listed for sale, but your ex refuses to sign the listing agreement.

Instead of just sanctioning your ex under Rule 1:10-3 and hoping they eventually comply, your attorney can request additional relief under Rule 4:59-2(a). The court may appoint an individual—often the moving party or their attorney—as an “attorney-in-fact” for the defaulting party.

That person is granted the limited authority to:

The signature of the court-appointed representative carries the same legal effect as if your ex had signed the documents themselves.

Even better, the rule provides that this is done at the cost of the defaulting party. That means your ex can be ordered to bear the financial burden of their own obstruction.

Rule 4:59-2(a) is frequently used to:

What This Means for You

For Clients

You are not stuck. If your ex’s signature is the only thing preventing you from selling property or finalizing a division, the law provides a direct path forward. By filing a motion to find your ex in violation of litigant’s rights and requesting relief under Rule 4:59-2(a), you can complete the transaction and ask the court to make your ex pay your legal fees.

For Attorneys

Effective post-judgment enforcement often requires a dual-pronged approach. Rule 1:10-3 remains your general enforcement mechanism—especially for support obligations and counsel-fee recovery. But Rule 4:59-2(a) is the more precise remedy for enforcing equitable distribution and specific performance.

An effective post-judgment motion should often seek relief under both rules simultaneously—first, under Rule 1:10-3 to obtain a finding of violation and recover fees, and second, under Rule 4:59-2(a) to get the transaction completed without further delay.

Conclusion: Turning Your Judgment into a Reality

Your Judgment of Divorce is not a suggestion—it is a mandate. New Jersey courts have both the authority and the procedural tools to enforce it.

By understanding and invoking both the coercive power of Rule 1:10-3 and the direct-action remedy of Rule 4:59-2(a), you can ensure that your judgment is not just on paper, but actually implemented.

Enforcing an Order or Appealing a Decision?

If you are facing a non-compliant ex-spouse—or if you are a trial attorney navigating a complex post-judgment enforcement issue—our team can help. We develop strategic enforcement motions and pursue appellate review when necessary.

Schedule a Consultation