In this matrimonial appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the trial court erroneously found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim that an account held by a limited liability company controlled by Defendant was a marital asset. In May 2017, after a thirty-four-day trial spanning three calendar years, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which resolved, as it expressly stated, “all issues remaining and shall be binding and enforceable upon each party” with one exception: Plaintiff’s claim to the Gauss account. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment to vindicate her view of the Gauss account. Defendant cross-moved for the appointment of a fiduciary manager for Gauss. The trial court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed, and the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed. The Court held that the trial court’s determination that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute about the nature of the Gauss account was simply erroneous.
