- 4 -
Discussion
The parties dispute whether petitioner can claim a deduction
of $23,400 for alimony paid to Ms. LaBozetta. At trial,
petitioner maintained that the $23,400 at issue qualified as
alimony on the basis of these factors: The presence of
contradictory language in an earlier draft of the agreement
calling for alimony to be paid to Ms. LaBozetta; petitioner’s
belief that the $23,400 “payment” on May 9, 2002 (the date of the
agreement), was, in fact, alimony; and that the word “alimony”
was stricken from the copy of the agreement immediately before
its signing on the basis of an understanding between petitioner
and Ms. LaBozetta that the $23,400 at issue would stand in the
place of their previous agreement regarding alimony.
A. Settlement Agreement
Although petitioner conceded at trial that the agreement was
a final document, he nonetheless maintains that this Court should
reject the contract as written and, in the alternative, consider
evidence regarding prior events, including petitioner’s belief
that at the time the agreement was signed, the $23,400 at issue
was, in fact, alimony. Petitioner disputes the contractual terms
of the New Jersey Final Dual Judgment of Divorce and the
agreement, and accordingly, we must first examine the terms and
tenor of that contract.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011