« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
The IRS recently amended its "Innocent Spouse" Form 8857. It's quite detailed and can serve as a preliminary questionnaire for any New Jersey divorce cases involving suspected tax fraud. Unreported or underreported income? Unfiled tax returns? Use this readily available form as an initial client questionnaire. Internal Revenue Service, September 28, 2007; http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8857.pdf
In this acrimonious New Jersey divorce case, the father made various post-judgment requests : (1) a plenary hearing to resolve problems of custody and parenting time for the parties' 10-year old son; (2) appointment of a guardian ad litem; (3) appointment of a psychologist to perform a "best interests" evaluation; (4) the ordering of further protective measures for the child pursuant to the court's "parens patriae" jurisdiction; and (5) an order requiring the mother to submit to a psychological evaluation. But the New Jersey divorce judge correctly denied all these applications. The court's prior 2005 order incorporating the recommendations of the court-appointed psychologist properly protected the child's best interests. Tornillo v. Riddle, New Jersey App. Div., September 26, 2007
The New Jersey divorce judge properly rejected the mother's claims, including the amount of child support arrears owed, change of custody and various visitation issues. In particular, her planned pregnancy with her new husband, and her leaving work, "did not justify her failing to support her existing child." Thus, she did not present any evidence of changed circumstances justifying a plenary hearing on custody. Finally, the argument the father, as a male, was incapable of raising an adolescent girl, was constitutionally defective. Schottel, etc. v. Kutyba, New Jersey App. Div., September 25, 2007
The New Jersey divorce judge was correct (a) in deciding that the ex-husband breached the parties' New Jersey divorce agreement and (b) in denying his application for relief because his requests had already been previously decided in a 2002 trial. Moreover, several of the prior rulings had already been appealed and reviewed. Although the ex-husband now claims that his ex-wife suppressed evidence at trial, his request for relief is clearly time-barred and relief is not available without exceptional and compelling circumstances which are not present. Jones v. Jones, New Jersey App. Div., September 24, 2007
The parties to this New Jersey divorce agreed to submit certain issues to an arbitrator. Afterwards, the husband tried to appeal the amount of the Arbitrator's award of limited duration alimony to the wife. But the Arbitrator considered the appropriate statutory alimony factors, such as the amount of and disparity in the parties' respective incomes; the fact that the wife had been a dependent spouse and now wished to finish her medical residency; and the parties' marital standard of living. The Arbitrator's decision was not the product of fraud, corruption or wrongdoing, and made no technical errors in computation. As such, it cannot be undone by the court. Doctoroff v. Doctoroff, New Jersey App. Div., September 21, 2007
This was an acrimonious New Jersey divorce case, where the New Jersey divorce judge erred in concluding the wife's attempt to "revisit the circumstances of her removal from the former marital home" was barred by res judicata. Although the issue was pursued actively, there was never a ruling on the merits, i.e., whether the wife, in fact, violated the terms of the New Jersey judgment of divorce by changing the locks on the home and otherwise refusing the husband access. The judge's award of counsel fees to the husband was a mistaken exercise of discretion. Chan v. Huie, New Jersey App. Div. September 20, 2007
The New Jersey divorce judge correctly denied the father's motion to reduce child support because of his alleged disability related to a 2004 car accident. This was because the father failed to prove both "changed circumstances", as well as the unreasonableness of the "anti-Lepis" clause in the parties' New Jersey divorce agreement. The judge also properly awarded counsel fees to the mother. DiPalma v. DiPalma, App. Div., September 19, 2007
Plaintiff sought reinstatement of custody of some minor child or children and lifetime financial and medical support from the defendants. Plaintiff also indicated that someone neglected and endangered the child or children. No dates, names, relationships or locations of incidents were given to provide a factual background of the nature of her dispute with the defendants. Although the court denies the motion to dismiss filed by DYFS and the defendant N.J. Dept. of Children and Families Interstate Services Unit, it does grant their motion for a more definite statement. Scott v. Rowan Cy. Dept. of Social Svcs., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct., September 18, 2007
Even the Strahans' twin 2-year-old daughters' bed was sold off by the New Jersey divorce judge, at the insistence of their NFL-star father. The bed went for $8,750 in the auction to divide the assets of Jean and Michael Strahan after their prolonged divorce. Before the auction, Jean said she wanted the bed - it was only expected to go for about $3,000, but she got into a price war with another bidder. Since she gets half of all of the proceeds of the auction anyway, she wasn't too concerned. "It was a good battle, but I paid $16,000 for [the bed]," she said. More than 220 items from the couple's 7 -year marriage - including the bed and the family's 8 -foot, walnut kitchen table - were on the block. In court, Jean had asked Michael to let her temporarily keep the furniture in the home she shares with their twins until she sells the house. But the sack king - who astonished the divorce-court judge when he argued that even his daughters' baptismal cradle, chairs and other personal items should be sold off - refused. New York Post, September 17, 2007
The New Jersey divorce judge required the preparation of a QDRO securing the wife's 35% interest in the husband's police pension with his pre- and post-retirement group life insurance and is affirmed. But as to the second order that denied the husband's motion to limit the wife's life insurance benefits and terminate alimony upon her remarriage, a modification is necessary. In fact, the order should reflect the judge's ruling refusing to terminate alimony in the event of the wife's cohabitation or retirement, but terminating alimony if she remarries. Olski v. Olski, New Jersey App. Div., September 14, 2007
