New Jersey Family Law

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY : PARENT COORDINATOR

Under the New Jersey divorce agreement, they had agreed to use a Parent Coordinator to mediate parenting time disputes. The ex-wife claimed the ex-husband refused to sign the Parent Coordinator agreement. The New Jersey divorce judge ordered the Parent Coordinator provision to be enforced. The ex-husband did not demonstrate any changed circumstances to justify departing from the "clear, unambiguous and counseled provisions" of the New Jersey divorce agreement.    Tommaso v. Topolski, New Jersey App. Div., August 30, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER : COLLEGE AND EMANCIPATION

The New Jersey divorce judge erred in sua sponte declaring the parties' 20 year-old daughter emancipated because she took a brief hiatus between finishing community college and worked part-time before enrolling in a four-year school.   Conway v. Conway, New Jersey App. Div., August 29, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

The plaintiff objected to the bankruptcy discharge of wife, but the court holds that plaintiff failed to prove its case. The wife did not intend to defraud, hinder or delay when she signed a deed to her residence over to her husband's mother, nor has she failed to account for the loss of any property. The wife is herself a victim of her husband's fraud, has suffered more than any creditor and is entitled to a discharge.   In Re Coven, et ux., Debtors; First American Title Ins. Co., et al. v. Coven, et ux., U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., District of New Jersey, August 28, 2006.

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

Their New Jersey divorce agreement provided for joint custody and "aspects of the joint custodial arrangement" to be resolved by a Parenting Coordinator, with the father to pay most of the children's uninsured medical expenses. The New Jersey divorce judge properly determined that the services of the children's therapist [a licensed, certified social worker] fell within the New Jersey divorce agreement's "broad definition" of uninsured medical expenses. The father's argument that he should not have to pay for the therapist's services because she was not a psychologist or a physician and because the children had not been diagnosed with a mental illness was rejected as "disingenuous". Also, the New Jersey divorce judge was correct in amending a restraining order against the father to protect the therapist and in denying the father's request to remove the Parenting Coordinator.    Tafaro v. Tafaro, New Jersey App. Div., August 25, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION

Certain restricted stock units were subject to equitable distribution in the New Jersey divorce. Although the New Jersey divorce judge was correct in ruling that the date of filing of the New Jersey divorce complaint was the appropriate cut-off date for identifying the restricted stock units eligible for equitable distribution, he erred in excluding certain ones based upon considerations of vesting.    Walsh v. Walsh, New Jersey App. Div., August 25, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

After their New Jersey divorce, the father asked for unsupervised visitation with the parties’ 11-year-old son. This request was denied by the New Jersey divorce judge and is now affirmed. The New Jersey judgment of divorce granted sole custody to the mother and granted supervised visitation to the father based on his conviction for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl. Although he claimed the lack of problems with his visitation since his 1998 release from prison constituted changed circumstances, there was no basis to disturb the decision that unsupervised visitation was not in the son’s best interests in light of his special needs and the father’s conviction.   Frederick v. Frese, New Jersey App. Div., August 24, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

Did the New Jersey decedent intend to include surviving spouses - but not surviving New Jersey divorced spouses - as eligible beneficiaries of his trust? The grantor was the son of the founder of Johnson & Johnson; in an earlier decision, the Appellate Division held that the term "spouse" in the trust instrument was ambiguous on its face and had remanded to determine the grantor's probable intent. On remand, the scrivener of the trust instrument testified that the grantor had intended to included surviving spouses but not New Jersey divorced spouses. The Chancery Division accepted that testimony and its decision is now affirmed.  In Re Trust Created by Agreement dated December 20, 1961, New Jersey App. Div. August 22, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE DISCOVERY

New Jersey divorce cases often require expert testimony from accountants, appraisers, mental health professionals and others. Before testifying, such experts must submit written reports summarizing their opinion, failing which they are barred from appearing at trial or, worst case, having the claim dismissed. That's what happened here, where plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. Rule 4:17-7 precludes consideration of the plaintiff's "updated" report, since it was not accompanied by a certification that the information was not reasonably available earlier through the exercise of due diligence. Plaintiff's case was fatally defective without the updated report. Plaintiff also violated Rule 4:24-1(c) by failing to file a motion to re-open discovery. The unexplained omissions do not qualify for equitable relief in the form of rule relaxation.  Chapadia v. Campbell, et al., New Jersey App. Div., August 21, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE TAXES

Their New Jersey judgment of divorce required them to file amended joint income tax returns, after they had already filed individually. On their individual returns, the ex-wife's liability had been $34,772 and the ex-husband's had been $9,095, which he had paid in full. The liability on the joint return was $40,812. The trial court concluded that the ex-husband was entitled to half of the savings achieved by the joint filing and was not required to make an additional payment. The record clearly indicated that any other result was unfair to the ex-husband, who earned "significantly less" than the ex-wife and thus had a lesser tax liability.  Caruso v. Francioni-Caruso, New Jersey App. Div., August 18, 2006

NEW JERSEY MATRIMONIAL ATTORNEY

After his death, the decedent's attorney filed a stipulation of dismissal of the New Jersey divorce complaint. The executrix, who had an extramarital relationship with the decedent for almost 30 years, was the sole beneficiary of his will. The wife's guardian ad litem filed a claim for the wife's elective share and to overturn the will, and the executrix filed a motion to reinstate the divorce complaint. The New Jersey divorce court properly concluded that the decedent's death terminated the New Jersey divorce proceeding because a New Jersey divorce judgment could no longer could be entered.    Estate of Spadacini v. Spadacini, New Jersey App. Div., August 18, 2006