New Jersey Family Law

New Jersey Divorce : Shared or Sole Custody

In New Jersey, child support is calculated using two separate schedules. The first is based on "shared" custody, the second is based on "sole" custody. What's the dividing line between the two? More than 28% of the the time, on average, each week, that a child spends with the parent. Here, although the children did spend more than 28% of the time with the father, the court was still justified in using the "sole" custody parenting guidelines [resulting in a higher child support amount for the mother], since there was no evidence that the father maintained separate living accommodations for the children. Williamson v. Williamson, New Jersey App. Div. , December 27, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Evidence

Along with Judge Michael Diamond and Judge John Selser, Charles C. Abut, Esq. will be a featured speaker at a continuing legal education seminar, "Evidence For Family Lawyers" in Fairfield, New Jersey. In an interactive format, experienced matrimonial practitioners will be presented with a series of factual vignettes to demonstrate evidence issues arising in divorce litigation. After presenting each scenario, the panelists will discuss the admissibility [or not] of each item of evidence and offer practical guidance on how to handle similar situations in Court. New Jersey Institute For Continuing Legal Education, January 11, 2005.

New Jersey Divorce : Quickie Foreign Divorces

Maybe it's because they're in a hurry. Maybe it's because they can't establish New Jersey divorce jurisdiction. Whatever the reason, some people try to obtain a "quickie" divorce by going off-shore, to places like Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. One such jurisdiction used to be Guam, where non-residents were able to get a fast divorce if both parties consented. But Guam just enacted legislation which prohibits granting a divorce to non-residents of Guam, even in cases where both parties agree in writing. The validity of similar foreign divorces from other jurisdictions remains suspect. Bill #283, signed by the Governor of Guam, December 3, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Disappearing Expert

Many New Jersey divorce cases involve expert witnesses. These can be accountants, appraisers, doctors, mental health professionals or others. What happens if the particular expert selected for the litigation is not available when it comes time for trial and the client then claims damages as a result of the expert's absence? A malpractice case from Morris County was just dismissed and held neither the expert nor the client's lawyers responsible. Judge W. Hunt Dumont dismissed the malpractice case, because the scheduling mix-up wasn't the expert's fault. Further, the lawyers hadn't violated any professional standards and the client failed to prove that the expert's nonappearance cost him money.

Kranz v. Tiger, MRS-L-3661-00, New Jersey Law Division, Morris County, December 23, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Wives Have Standing

Wives of Snap-on Tools salesmen can't be barred from suing the company just because there's a clause in the franchise agreement saying they can't. While the agreement requires all franchise-related disputes be settled in arbitration, it's not enforceable because the wives didn't sign it. Snap-on sells automotive tools from vans driven to garages and other work sites by franchisees. The plaintiffs, Nancy Casey, Abbye Goldwasser and Maritza Franco claim they lost their  investment and ended up owing Snap-on hundreds of thousands of dollars. They said that while they were prohibited from being parties to the franchise agreement, Snap-on made exaggerated claims and gave false information during the sales pitches they attended, after which they put up their own money. Franco v. Snap-on Tools ; Casey v. Snap-on Tools, New Jersey Law Division, Middlesex County, December 23, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Pensions & Retirement

Retirement assets earned or accumulated during the marriage are presumptively subject to New Jersey equitable distribution. Where the husband made a post-divorce choice to waive his military retirement pay in order to receive the same amount in non-taxable veterans’ disability benefits, he was properly ordered to make up the shortfall in his former wife’s equitable distribution award of his military retirement pension. Whitfield v. Whitfield, ___N.J. Super___(App. Div. 2004); 2004 WL         ; December 22, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Sanctions

Be very careful when you sue a lawyer. Here, the former client sued her former attorney for issues arising out of a custody proceeding. The former lawyer warned the client that her claim against him was without merit and asked her to withdraw it. When she refused, the lawyer successfully had her case dismissed and then obtained a money judgment against her for legal fees, under the authority of the New Jersey Frivolous Litigation statute [N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1] and Rule [1:4-8]. Bavishi v. Melnikoff, New Jersey Appellate Division, December 21, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Hearsay & Excited Utterances

Rodrigues v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281 (1971), requires the assignment of counsel to an indigent before incarceration based on a violation of a domestic violence restraining order.  Here, the conviction was based on the testimony of a responding police officer who reported the hearsay excited utterance of defendant’s former girlfriend. On retrial, the Family Part is directed to  consider the impact of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) as to admissibility of the statement. State v. Ashford, ___N.J. Super.___ (App. Div. 2004); 2004 WL 2921881;December 20, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Paternity

Even though Steve Barreras adamantly denied fathering the daughter his ex-wife, Viola Trevino, claimed was born to her in December 1999, and even pointed out he had a vasectomy in 1998, the court in Albuquerque, N.M., ordered him to pay child support.  The order, based on apparent DNA matches, required the state Human Services Department to garnish Barreras' paycheck, which they did, compelling him to pay a total $20,000. But Trevino's elaborate ruse, which involved a forged Social Security number and birth and baptismal certificates, as well as fake DNA evidence, ended when the judge ordered her to produce the child. Trevino approached a 2-year-old girl and her grandmother on the street, promised them a trip to see Santa Claus and $50, and after treating them to hamburgers, left the grandmother in the car and took the girl into court, alleging she was her daughter. Only when the grandmother followed her into court did Trevino admit the little girl was not hers. State District Judge Linda Vanzi concluded the child allegedly fathered by Barreras did not exist. New Jersey Lawyer Daily Briefing, December 16, 2004.

New Jersey Divorce : Name Changes

When the primary caretaker seeks to name or to change the surname of a child, there is a presumption in favor of the primary caretaker that the name selected is in the best interests of the child. That presumption may be rebutted by proof offered by the secondary caretaker that the name change is not in the best interests of the child. In this case, a remand was required because the trial court failed to apply the presumption and failed to make findings of fact. Ronan v. Adely, New Jersey Supreme Court, December 15, 2004.