« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
The legislature has introduced a new bill that would terminate New Jersey child support obligations upon the death of the obligor/payor. New Jersey Assembly Bill A-2516, February 28, 2006; The New Jersey Lawyer
The trial court erred in reducing the father's child support obligation. The New Jersey divorce agreement provided for less alimony in exchange for child support in excess of the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. It also provided for no reduction of child support unless there was "a prima facie showing of a substantial, unanticipated and involuntary change in his financial circumstances". The trial court rejected the father's claim that his income had decreased, but it still reduced his child support obligation because the mother's income had increased. Reversal is required because the New Jersey divorce agreement is enforceable and because the trial court improperly ignored it by lowering child support based on circumstances the parties agreed would not justify a reduction. Miller v. Miller, New Jersey App. Div., February 27, 2006
1. While defendant's verbal ministrations to plaintiff -- his former girlfriend -- were unwanted and continued, despite her attempts to discourage them, they did not rise to the level of serious annoyance contemplated by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c to qualify as an act of domestic violence. This is especially so because she admitted that he never uttered any threats, and she felt no alarm or anxiety about her safety. The final New Jersey restraining order is reversed. Bodnar v. Sperendi, App. Div. February 24, 2006 2. The trial judge was wrong in finding the defendant guilty of domestic violence. For 3 months after she ended the New Jersey relationship, he telephoned her and left messages on her answering machine, stopped by her work area at their shared place of employment, and visited her home uninvited. The series of acts which the judge described as harassing communications consisted largely of communications by telephone that had ceased, and visits that had ended long before plaintiff sought protection. Although there were two letters that were left for plaintiff more recently, there was nothing harassing about either of them. Steele v. Duffy, App. Div., February 24, 2006
The appellate panel reverses an order that authorized the mother to relocate with the parties' 5-year-old son from Bergen County to Manahawkin in Ocean County, a distance of more than 100 miles. The trial court entered this order without a plenary hearing and without affording the father an opportunity to present oral argument in support of his position. Orrico v. Orrico, New Jersey App. Div., February 24, 2006
Plaintiff failed to establish cohabitation to support her palimony claim where, during a 10-year relationship, the decedent chose to live alone in several residences while the plaintiff and the child of the relationship lived nearby in a separate residence that the decedent owned, even though the plaintiff and the decedent spent time together at the residences and traveled together on occasion. Clear and convincing proof of the plaintiff's claim was required under the Dead Man's Statute [N.J.S.A. 2A:81-2]. McDonald v. Estate of Mavety, ___N.J.___ (App. Div. 2006); New Jersey App. Div., February 22, 2006
The petitioners seek a declaration that their 80-year-old father is mentally incapacitated, and unable to govern himself or manage his personal and financial affairs, as a result of unsoundness of mind. They also seek appointment as co-guardians of their father, appointment as his medical co-guardians and revocation of any Powers of Attorney executed by him. Reviewing the testimony of three witnesses -- the father's long-time friend, financial manager, and attorney, the medical reports, including a court-ordered evaluation, his own interaction with the father, and the parties' positions, and discussing the common law and the differences in the new guardianship statute between a limited guardian and general guardian, the judge finds it appropriate to appoint the son and the long-time friend as co-general guardians. In Re Goldemberg, New Jersey Chancery Div., February 21, 2006
The court reverses the Family Part order granting residential custody of the parties' 5 year-old daughter to the mother and granting visitation to the father every weekend, where the judge apparently did not consider the facts in the custody/parenting time report of the probation officer. The judge appears to have treated custody as settled, and the issue before him as one of visitation only, whereas the report raises concerns which require full consideration of the custody issue on remand. Weatherington v. Gore, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2006
The appellate panel reverses the trial judge's determination -- that defendant had no financial responsibility to contribute to the college education of his daughter based on the absence of a relationship between the two -- finding that such a determination could not have been reached without an evidentiary hearing. Kaufmann v. Ferraiuolo, New Jersey App. Div., February 17, 2006
The mother's New Jersey matrimonial motion to compel the father to provide her with his relevant medical and/or psychiatric records was properly denied. The application was for the future medical care of the parties' children. Although he objected on privacy grounds, he agreed to cooperate with any doctor treating his children. Therefore, the judge equitably tailored the order to deny the motion for release of the records to her, but provided for their future release to physicians. Absent expert opinion that current release of the records is necessary, her claims that he might flee the jurisdiction or might be disabled and unable to cooperate or might refuse to cooperate in the future are all rejected. Massaro v. Massaro, New Jersey App. Div., February 16, 2006
On the parties' cross-appeals from the New Jersey divorce judgment, the appellate panel affirms most of the judge's decisions, finding them legally sound. However, the panel agrees that the judge did err in awarding defendant rehabilitative alimony; valuing plaintiff's Dreyfus fund account; and ordering plaintiff to pay 100% of the children's unreimbursed orthodontia expenses. Trotman v. Trotman, New Jersey App. Div., February 15, 2006
