« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has just handed a major victory to mediators and the mediation process. Recognizing that the essence of successful mediation lies in assuring confidentialtiy to the participants, the Court reaffirms decisions by the trial court and the Appellate Division, refusing to allow the testimony of a mediator as to matters heard or said during the mediation. State v. Williams, ___N.J.___ (2005); ____WL ____; July 28, 2005
Of all New Jersey divorce judgments that are appealed, most are affirmed. Here, both sides appealed and both appeals were rejected. The ex-wife received one-half interest in the marital home, $239,000 in liquid assets, rehabilitative and permanent alimony decreasing from $15,790 per month to $12,250 per month, $6,000 per month in child support for the parties’ four sons, and $90,000 in attorney’s/expert fees. Considering the judgment as a whole, it was "fair and reasonable," and there was no basis to reverse it. There was little challenge to the trial court’s legal conclusions and the trial court stated its factual findings in "extensive detail." Borchert v. Borchert, New Jersey App. Div., July 27, 2005
Many New Jersey divorce cases involve the production and analysis of telephone records. What about cell phones? This case demonstrates that those, too, can be compelled. In spite of technical omissions pertaining to the search warrant used, the court holds that the records need not be excluded and are admissible on the basis of the independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines. State v. Roberts, et al., New Jersey App. Div., July 26, 2005
The general rule remains that New Jersey courts will not ordinarily order divorcing parties to file joint income tax returns. In this case, however, the court holds that trial courts in New Jersey do have discretionary authority to compel joint tax returns, depending on whether extraordinary facts are present. Here, the parties are ordered to file joint returns for 3 years. Bursztyn v. Bursztyn, New Jersey App. Div., July 25, 2005.
For more : 
One of the problems that can crop up during any New Jersey divorce is the issue of unpaid taxes. Sometimes a vengeful ex-spouse can "squeal" to the IRS, incentivized by the bounty that's payable under certain circumstances. That can be up to 10% of the amount collected, with a $2,000,000 cap. July 22, 2005
In spite of his claim that he was estranged from his son, and that the estrangement was not of his own doing, the father is nevertheless ordered to pay 44% of the college expenses of the son. This result applies, even though (a) the parties did not address the issue in their New Jersey divorce agreement and (b) the mother gave the father no notice about the child's college plans. The court notes that the father did not attend court-ordered therapy sessions. Conod v. Hall, New Jersey App. Div., July 21, 2005
Where the ex-husband had long ago indicated his intention to take early retirement at age 59 due to heart problems, and sought to terminate his alimony obligation, the trial judge found that the decision was made in good faith for rational medical reasons. However, the voluntary early retirement had a significant negative impact on the ex-wife, which outweighed the benefit to the ex-husband. A more reasonable retirement age would have been 62. McCarron v. McCarron, et al., New Jersey App. Div., July 20, 2005
The general rule in New Jersey divorce law is that child support orders can't be modified retroactively. Here, however, there were extraordinary circumstances. A $490,000 judgment for child support had been entered in 1996 against the father, who expected a million dollar business transaction to go through. That did not happen and the mother knew that he did not have the funds. Accordingly, her res judicata and other defenses were properly disregarded. Romano v. Tanner, New Jersey App. Div., July 19, 2005
Under their New Jersey divorce agreement, he had paid $1,300 per month in alimony and child support for his ex-wife and their three children. After the emancipation of the children, his alimony obligation was only $400 per month. His motion for a further alimony reduction was denied because neither his age, health problems, nor his loss of employment established a prima facie case of changed circumstances. Crane v. Crane, New Jersey App. Div., July 18, 2005
In awarding attorney's fees as compensatory damages to a prevailing plaintiff in a domestic violence case, a court should consider only whether the fees were incurred as a result of the domestic violence and whether they are reasonable. It should not consider the parties' ability to pay or their financial circumstances. Wine v. Quezada, ___N.J. Super.___ (Ch. Div. 2005); Passaic County, July 15, 2005
