Marshall Williams v. Estate of Evelyn L. Williams

Camden, New Jersey divorce lawyers represented the parties to a marriage dissolution action.

The parties were married in 1985. Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce from defendant on February 11, 2020. After default was entered and vacated, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce on or about October 12, 2020. Both parties were represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.



Although the parties participated in a matrimonial early settlement panel and several settlement conferences, they were unable to reach an agreement that resolved all their issues. An initial trial date of July 14, 2021 was adjourned at defendant's request because she was undergoing brain surgery that day, having been diagnosed with cancer in 2018. Another settlement conference was held by Judge Sherri Schweitzer on September 15, 2021, after which the parties, through counsel, continued their attempts to resolve the matter. According to defendant's attorney, throughout the conferences and discussions, plaintiff was intractable in his settlement position.



In the morning of December 10, 2021, defendant's attorney contacted plaintiff's attorney and advised him defendant was on hospice and wanted to move forward with the divorce before she died. He then contacted Judge Schweitzer's chambers to request an expedited conference, given the urgency of the situation. The judge's chambers advised counsel to appear for a virtual conference at 4:00 p.m. that day.



According to plaintiff's attorney, the judge conducted an initial conference with counsel off the record, at which time she advised him defendant's health was failing, defendant had accepted plaintiff's settlement offer, and counsel had fifteen minutes to join plaintiff on the virtual conference to put through the divorce. The judge also informed counsel that defendant's sister, Anita Spady, who had power-of-attorney for defendant, would appear virtually as well. Plaintiff's counsel advised the judge that the previous day, plaintiff told him defendant had revoked Spady's power-of-attorney because Spady had stolen from her, and defendant had granted power-of-attorney to the parties' son. The judge said she would address the issue during the hearing.



Once on the record, plaintiff said he was "a little confused about . . . whether the person that's speaking on behalf of [defendant] qualifies to speak." Judge Schweitzer questioned defendant's counsel:...



Williams v. Estate of Williams, A-2061-21 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Jul 31, 2024)