What is a summary of the status of New Jersey caselaw regarding the enforceability of anti-Lepis clauses?
In the case of Smith v. Smith, 261 N.J. (Ch. Div. 1992), the court held that an anti-Lepis clause, that seeks to bar the exercise of the court’s equitable responsibly to review, and if warranted, modify support obligations in response to changed circumstances is contrary to public policy. However, in the case of Finckin v. Finckin, 240 N.J. Super. 204, the court held that the grounds of public policy did not prohibit the use of an anti-Lepis clause. Finally, in the case of Morris v. Morris, 263 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 1993), the court concluded that to some extent it agreed with both the Smith and the Finckin decisions. The court held that a review of any case with anti-Lepis issues would depend on the totality of the circumstances of the individual case. The Morris court further held that it would enforce the parties own individual anti-Lepis clause in their property settlement agreement. The parties own property settlement agreement rejected the changes of circumstances guidelines
