« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
The decedent's first marriage was ended by a New York divorce judgment. He then moved to New Jersey, remarried and made out a will naming his second wife as his beneficiary and executrix. The trial court threw out the first wife's attempt to obtain an elective share of his estate and rejected her claim that she was still legally married to him. The Appellate Division affirms. In Re Estate of Formoso, New Jersey App. Div., May 19, 2006
The plaintiff attorney brought this action to recover fees awarded for his representation of the defendant's ex-wife in their divorce case. On appeal, the court found that the fees had been awarded properly, that a correct judgment had been entered, and that the order for the turnover of funds was appropriately entered. Contrary to the defendant's argument on appeal, the transcript did not reveal any "bias, prejudice, rudeness, or derogatory behavior" by the judge who ordered the turnover. Fetky v. Theresa, New Jersey App. Division, May 18, 2006
Under the heading of "cheaper to keep her," Britain's highest appeals court has awarded more than $9 million of fund manager Alan Miller's $33 million estate to his wife in their divorce settlement. Miller had appealed because, his lawyers said, he was being unfairly punished for an affair with another woman during his 33-month marriage. But the ruling was upheld. The case has been watched in part for possible implications for the divorce of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills McCartney, after a marriage of similar duration. The former Beatle is worth a reported $1.5 billion. The New Jersey Lawyer, May 17, 2006
This was the second appellate trip for this New Jersey divorce couple. This time, rather than remanding again, the Appellate Division exercises its original jurisdiction and rectifies the division of a 9.81% equity interest in a closely-held corporation. The Court addresses the correct amount to be distributed to each party, including whether a minority discount should have been applied in the equitable distribution valuation process. Thalmann v. Thalmann, Jr., New Jersey App. Div., May 16, 2006
New Jersey Court Rule 5:6B requires all orders and judgments containing child support after 1998 to provide that child support "will be adjusted every two years to reflect the cost of living". Despite that "clear injunction," the parties' 2003 New Jersey divorce judgment did not contain the required provision. The trial court correctly imposed the increase because the father was subject to the cost-of-living provisions of Rule 5:6B, even if not expressly acknowledged in the New Jersey divorce judgment. Donahue v. Donahue, New Jersey App. Div., May 15, 2006
Following a hearing, the Family Part judge appropriately denied plaintiff's application seeking termination of alimony as a result of the alleged cohabitation of defendant, his former wife, with an unrelated male "as man and wife" for a four-year period. Although the judge found that plaintiff had every reason to suspect cohabitation, she found that the conditions for termination of alimony were not proven, under the definition in the original New Jersey divorce agreement. Memmott v. Memmott, New Jersey App. Div., May 12, 2006
On defendant's application to emancipate his 3 children and reduce arrearages, the judge appropriately emancipated the 2 older children, ordered defendant to continue to pay child support for the youngest daughter, and, considering defendant's history of non-compliance with support orders -- including a conviction for willful failure to pay child support -- ordered him to continue to pay toward over $240,000 in child support arrearages until satisfied. Giordano v. Giordano, New Jersey App. Div., May 11, 2006
The parties have joint legal and residential custody of their two children, who attend Demarest public schools. Defendant moved to transfer the children to the Ridgewood schools, and plaintiff opposed the motion, cross-moving to amend the parties' shared custody and parenting plan. The judge denied both motions, concluding that there were not "sufficient discrepancies" to require a plenary hearing. However, because the judge did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law, the matter is remanded to the trial court. Shau v. Wu, New Jersey App. Div., May 10, 2006
The award of $394 per week in permanent alimony to the defendant ex-wife, support arrears and counsel fees are affirmed. As to alimony, the ex-husband's income figures were "artificially low" due to his refusal of overtime. There was not enough money to pay for either party's entire monthly needs, so the Family Part correctly arrived at a compromise result in each party having enough to pay for 61 percent of their needs. As to arrears of pendente lite support, it was proper to reject the ex-husband's claim that support was excessive. As to attorney's fees, the ex-wife had to respond to two motions "absolutely unquestionably not appropriate." Lodge v. Lodge, New Jersey App. Div., May 9, 2006
Under the unusual circumstances presented and in light of the lateness of the application for financial contribution, a fair balancing of the factors enumerated in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982) and the relevant provisions of the statute relating to child support, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)(5) demonstrate that the non-custodial parent should not have to contribute to the child's college loans. The father argued it is a violation of the New Jersey and federal constitutions to compel divorced parents, but not married parents, to pay for their college educations; the Supreme Court declined to address this issue. Gac v. Gac, New Jersey Supreme Court; ___ N.J.___ (2006); May 8, 2006
