New Jersey Family Law

MORRISTOWN DIVORCE LAWYER

It's rare indeed that a divorce case gets decided by a jury. It's even rarer---maybe unprecedented---that a jury hears the case and then refuses to grant the divorce. But that's what happened between Chana Taub and Simon Taub, who were looking to end their 21 year marriage. A Brooklyn New York jury heard the case and then decided, after 2 years of litigation, 10 days of trial and 5 hours of deliberation, that "cruel and inhuman treatment" had not been proven. New York Justice Carolyn Demarest then dismissed the case. New York Daily News, March 21, 2007

SOUTH ORANGE MEDIATION

The court dismisses plaintiff’s civil rights complaint against the defendant, a family court judge who denied her application for a domestic violence restraining order, (1) because the judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity; and (2) since, by asking the court to compel the judge to issue the restraining order, and to otherwise review the judge’s decision in plaintiff’s state court case, plaintiff is asking the court to act as a n appellate court, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.      Vandy v. Millard, U.S. Dist. Ct., District of New Jersey, March 16, 2007

LIVINGSTON DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The United States Supreme Court has declined to review the issue of when state courts can award visitation rights to grandparents, over the objection of a child’s parents. It let stand a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that upheld a visitation order without requiring proof that denying visits would harm the child. Twelve states prohibit ordering grandparent visitation unless it can be shown that the child would be harmed by their absence.     Fausey v. Hiller, No. 06-863, March 15, 2007

MILLBURN DIVORCE MEDIATOR

New York football Giants star Michael Strahan just dodged a loss. A New Jersey appeals panel has decided he doesn't have to pay his ex-wife Jean $6.5 million now. This is the remainder from the $15 million New Jersey divorce award along with child support at $18,000 a month. The payment would have been due next Friday. The court will review the terms of the final judgment after lawyers for both sides complete their submissions and make oral arguments. The process could take a year or longer. New York Post, March 14, 2007

MADISON DIVORCE MEDIATION

When they signed their New Jersey divorce agreement, they created a custodial account to pay for their sons’ college education. Now, the father sought to convert this fund into a "trust account" to prevent the eldest son, who is now over 21, from claiming his share of the funds for any purpose other than defraying his educational expenses. The New Jersey judge was correct in refusing to rewrite the otherwise clearly-worded statement of the parties’ intent at the time of the New Jersey divorce.    Oliver, etc. v. Oliver, New Jersey App. Div., March 13, 2007

SUMMIT DIVORCE ATTORNEY

They agreed his stock options were worth $184,000 for equitable distribution purposes. But 11 days after signing off on this deal, the ex-husband changed his mind and sought to revoke this part of their agreement. Using a new valuation expert, he argued the stock options were worthless. Without a hearing, the Family Part judge granted the ex-wife's motion to enforce and denied the ex-husband's motion for reformation. The Appellate Division affirmed because the parties' certifications did not raise a genuine factual dispute as to whether there was mistake or fraud. Both parties were well-educated and well-represented. Moreover, the ex-husband sought to obtain the benefits to which he was entitled under their agreement. Although he was in control of the asset which he later claimed was undervalued, he had been in the best position to determine the true value of the stock options prior to negotiations. He showed no fraud or other inequitable conduct on the part of the ex-wife in the negotiations.    Minervini v. Minervini, New Jersey App. Div., March 12, 2007

SADDLE RIVER DIVORCE MEDIATION

Their February 2005 New Jersey divorce agreement provided for child support and alimony based on a stipulated amount of income for the ex-husband. More support was to be paid if his income increased. The issue was how to treat $73,000 which he received in January of 2005, bringing his total income for that year well over the base amount. He argued that none of this amount should be included for purposes of calculating additional support because it was received before the execution of the New Jersey divorce agreement February, 2005. Although the New Jersey divorce judge agreed, the Appellate Division reverses, based on the plain language of the agreement.    Kaplan v. Kaplan, New Jersey App. Div., March 9, 2007

CRESSKILL DIVORCE MEDIATOR

After the parties’ dating relationship foundered, he sued her for reimbursement of $80,000 he allegedly loaned her over the course of their relationship. She counterclaimed for certain jewelry. During the trial, she played an audiotape with a composite of a series of 16 messages he left on her telephone over a 3-day period. The appellate panel affirms the judgment dismissing his complaint and awarding her damages on her counterclaim, rejecting his assertions of error as to the admission of the audiotape. He never objected to the tape at trial, and took the stand and testified in rebuttal after it was played, never disputing its authenticity.     Colombino v. Vaccaro, et al., New Jersey App. Div., March 8, 2007

HACKENSACK DIVORCE

The defendant Board of Education offered the mother's autistic son a free appropriate public education in accordance with the IDEA. But she failed to comply with the regulations governing reimbursement. Thus, her claim for reimbursement for payments she made to aides in connection with her son’s education were properly denied. The mother did not take issue with the IEPs themselves, or otherwise allege that the placements, curricula, or supplementary aids and services were not reasonably calculated to enable her son to advance, nor did she allege that they actually failed to provide her son with an opportunity for "significant learning" or "meaningful educational benefit." Also, she did not provide the Board with documentation of the additional sums she expended.   Fisher, etc. v. Stafford Twp. Bd. of Education, U.S. Dist. Ct., March 7, 2007

MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE

The parties' New Jersey divorce agreement required the ex-husband to pay $5,000 per month in unallocated alimony and child support, and it set forth the tax consequences of that support. Contrary to the ex-wife’s arguments, the terms of that agreement do not violate the Internal Revenue Code. The court also properly rejected her claim for reimbursement of income taxes she paid because her accountants had "blatantly ignored" the language that prohibited the calculation of the reimbursement that they believed she was entitled to receive. Weiss v. Weiss, New Jersey App. Div., March 6, 2007