« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
On the plaintiff-mother's appeal, the court finds that the record in its present state is insufficient to support the judge's grant of the defendant-father's request to relocate to Puerto Rico with the children of the marriage, one of whom is autistic and multiply-disabled. Segarra v. Soto, New Jersey App. Div., January 26, 2006
It was error to enforce the New Jersey divorce agreement which defendant had entered into without the benefit of counsel. The court never took testimony as to the merits, which was prepared by plaintiff's counsel, but merely found that it had been entered into voluntarily, which defendant disputes. Also, a serious question concerning the fairness of the agreement has been raised by defendant, who received only $12,500 against a net equity of $157,000 in the marital property. Thompson v. Thompson, New Jersey App. Div., January 25, 2006
The legislature has introduced a bill that would amend the New Jersey divorce statute to include a cause of action for divorce based on "irreconcilable differences". The proposed legislation provides that a divorce will be granted on grounds of "irreconcilable differences which have caused the breakdown of the marriage for a period of six months and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation." Assembly Bill A-580, 211th Legislature, January 24, 2006
The court reverses the order enforcing a New Jersey divorce settlement allegedly reached during a court-ordered mediation session. It was error to allow the court-appointed mediator to testify, in violation of Rule 1:40-4(c). And even without the mediator's testimony, the finding that the parties reached a settlement was not supported by the evidence, especially since both parties stipulated they failed to settle 3 significant issues. Lehr v. Afflitto, App. Div. ___N.J. Super.___(App. Div. 2006), New Jersey App. Div., January 23, 2006
Under the New Jersey Artificial Insemination Statute [N.J.S.A. 9:17-44(a], a child conceived through artificial insemination and borne to a same-sex married couple should be accorded, from the moment of birth, the certainty of parentage, with its resultant rights, benefits and protections. The non-birth mother is acknowledged as the other parent of the infant borne to the birth mother of this couple. In Re Child of Robinson, etc., ___N.J. Super.___(Ch. Div. 2006) Essex Cy. (Talbert, J.S.C.), January 20, 2006
Denial of a petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act seeking return of petitioner-husband's children to the United Kingdom is reversed where petitioner needed to establish the children's "habitual residence" only by a preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Humphrey v. Humphrey, No. 04-1036; U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; January 19, 2006 ;
After the parties' New Jersey divorce judgment, the trial court made various rulings without a hearing. These included emancipation of the daughter, emancipation of the son, the children's college expenses and their medical costs. These issues were too serious to be decided on the papers. The decision is reversed and remanded. O'Neill v. O'Neill, New Jersey App. Div., January 18, 2006
A $9,000 counsel fee award is reversed. Aside from suggesting lack of good faith on plaintiff's part in pursuing modification of the New Jersey divorce judgment, the trial judge ignored the other factors in Rule 5:3-5(c). Also, the decision lacks critical review of the nature/extent of services rendered, complexity/difficulty of the issues determined, and reasonableness/necessity of time spent by counsel. Moreover, the most glaring deficit is failure to consider the parties' Agreement containing a mutual waiver of legal fees. Woodruff v. Falcone, New Jersey App. Div., January 17, 2006
The trial court violated Rule 1:7-4(a) by not making findings of fact and conclusions of law and by not stating the reasons for its decision. The trial court also violated Rule 5:5-4(a) when it denied the father's request for oral argument. In remanding, the court notes its concern with the judge's delegation of ultimate decision-making authority to the court-appointed Parent Coordinator. Rodriguez v. Crane, New Jersey App. Div., January 16, 2006
Plaintiff sued defendant for $55,000 that she allegedly lent him during their romantic relationship. However, the monies were gifts and not loans, where the married plaintiff gave defendant various amounts during their relationship, and only demanded repayment when she ended their relationship after learning he also had a relationship with another woman and had not terminated it, as he promised. In light of the ex-girlfriend’s expectations and the parties’ relationship , the trial court also properly found no basis for unjust enrichment. Lang v. Deng, New Jersey App. Div., January 13, 2006
