New Jersey Family Law

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION : PARENTS' COSTS

  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that federal law requiring public schools to provide a free and "appropriate" education for children with disabilities does not require school districts to reimburse parents for costs of putting on expert testimony in hearings called to evaluate a proposed special-education plan. The federal law [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] provides that parents who prevail at such hearings can be reimbursed for their lawyers' fees. Congress did not explicitly provide for the fees of expert witnesses, Justice Alito wrote for the majority.  Arlington Central School District v. Murphy, No. 05-18, ___U.S.___ (2006); June 13, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ARBITRATOR : MUSLIM MARRIAGE

In this New Jersey divorce trial, the wife sought to enforce the parties' "Mahr" agreement, a Muslim marriage contract entered into before marriage, under which husband promises wife a gift when the marriage is concluded. Upon receipt, a woman's Mahr automatically becomes her separate property. In this case, the wife sought enforcement of his obligation under the Mahr to pay her $50,000. While the Mahr has often been misconstrued by American courts as a prenuptial contract, Odatalla v. Odatalla recognized that a simple contract approach should be used to resolve a Mahr dispute. Unlike a prenuptial agreement, the Mahr is a simple contract that serves as a supplement, not a substitute, to other legal obligations between spouses. Therefore, Odatalla is the proper approach for judicial resolution of a Mahr. It is a simple contract, enforceable as long as the requirements of a valid contract are met. Here, those requirements have not been met : the amount of the payment was inequitable and defendant signed the agreement under duress, fearing that, if he did not do so, the marriage would not take place and he would be deported. Wife used husband's immigration status as both a sword and a shield. She also made unsupported allegations of abuse and cruelty against him, was not credible and was guilty of bad faith. This Mahr agreement is unenforceable.   Attia v. Amin, New Jersey Ch. Div., June 12, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR : SELL THE HOUSE

After their New Jersey divorce, the ex-wife was to buy out the ex-husband's interest in the marital home for half of $167,000, less the mortgage balance as of 2003. Their New Jersey divorce agreement provided the home be sold after their youngest child turned 19. He moved to sell the home after their youngest child turned 19 in 2003. The New Jersey divorce agreement gave her the first option to purchase his interest, but the parties disputed whether she had to pay half of $167,000 (the value according to a 1996 broker's market analysis) or half of the current market value. The earlier value was proper and the trial court's interpretation was correct.   Pacifico v. Pacifico, New Jersey App. Div., June 9, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

Giants sack king Michael Strahan and his estranged wife are blitzing each other with dueling tales of wild, free-spending ways in their pending New Jersey divorce. Strahan said his soon-to-be ex-wife spoiled their toddler twin girls, recently lavishing nearly $100,000 on them - including $27,000 for clothes alone. But Mrs. Strahan countered that her husband splurged nearly $200,000 on two ultra-luxury cars, spent money on a mistress and kept a secret ledger detailing the married couple's sex romps before the girls were born. "I don't want [the twins] to be spoiled," said Strahan, 34, who kept his cool under fierce questioning from his wife's lawyer. The faceoff in New Jersey Family Court in Newark is rife with the problems only the rich face - like how many millions is enough to end a marriage.

   New York Daily News, June 8, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LITIGATION

This bitterly contested New Jersey divorce action involved claims of wiretapping, transmission of sexual disease, judicial bias, 6 year marriage, 3 children, 3 forms of divorce judgment, 17 day trial, 31 page opinion, pendente lite sale of marital home, bankruptcy filing, inheritance immunity, pre-marital immunity, alimony denial, domestic violence, valuation of closely held business, pendente lite sale of business, unreported income, criminal complaint, and others. Although the case has been remanded for a July 8, 2006 hearing, there is every indication it will last a lot longer.    Garfinkel v. Garfinkel, New Jersey App. Div., June 7, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ARBITRATION

New Jersey divorce parties refer to "going to court". But contested divorces can also be resolved through arbitration, instead of litigation. In this case, the Appellate Division approves of the binding arbitration agreement under which all economic issues were resolved by neutral arbitrators. The parties agreed the arbitration award would not be appealable under the arbitration statute, common law or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. Moreover, the parties mutually selected arbitrators experienced in New Jersey Family Law. Thus, review is limited and, barring corruption, fraud, undue means or a violation of public policy, the final outcome cannot be set aside.    Anderson v. Anderson, New Jersey App. Div., June 6, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : BUSINESS VALUATION

A frequent issue in New Jersey divorce cases is the valuation of a closely held business. Here, the Court deals with the buyout of an interest in a LLC [Limited Liability Company]. Plaintiff asserts he is entitled to a figure determined by his expert accountant pursuant to the Operating Agreement, while defendants contend plaintiff's interest is subject to a rate swap, yielding a lower valuation. They also allege he acted in bad faith in setting up a competing company. Because the parties agree on the minimum amount due, the Court enters judgment for that amount. As to the balance, the court denies summary judgment, concluding additional discovery is necessary. Gerber, Jr. v. Gerber, et al., New Jersey Ch. Div., June 2, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : DUCKING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS

The Appellate division reverses the decision to reduce the father's child support payments. Current earnings are not the sole criterion to establish a child support obligation. While he did take another job with a substantial reduction in salary, the mother proved he was underemployed, had additional income, and, after satisfying a child support lien, transferred his home to his new wife for $1.00, in order to avoid future liens.   Smith, etc. v. Morales, New Jersey App. Div., June 1, 2006