New Jersey Family Law

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey restraining order involving phone calls is vacated. Neither party disputed the number of calls. Rather, the issues were whether plaintiff told defendant to stop making them, and whether his purpose in making them was to harass plaintiff. Because the New Jersey judge who issued the temporary restraining order had a conflict of interest, the matter is remanded. Plaintiff is a municipal court administrator, and administrators are directly supervised by the municipal judges in their municipality. Thus, the close working relationship gave rise to an appearance of impropriety. The plaintiff should have advised the judge that she was seeking a restraining order and asked him to direct her to another judge to consider her complaint.  Cook v. Struble, New Jersey App. Div., October 18, 2007

ESSEX FELLS NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge entered an order that retroactively increased the ex-husband's child support obligation, required him to contribute to the cost of a car for his son, and directed him to provide an accounting of the liquidated marital stock options to be placed into a joint bank account. Since the order in question and the record below indicate that the payments in the order are "subject to proofs and accounting," no final decision has been made. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.      Stinga v. Stinga, New Jersey App. Div., October 17, 2007

HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY MATRIMONIAL MEDIATION LAWYER

The wedding bouquet has barely faded and already a New York bride has regrets — not because she married, but because of the flowers. The bride, Elana Glatt, says her florist committed a series of faux pas at her wedding. Ms. Glatt says in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, the florist substituted pastel pink and green hydrangeas for the dark rust and green hydrangeas she had specified. Not only was the color wrong, but the hydrangeas were wilted and brown, and arranged in dusty vases without enough water. Ms. Glatt said they had reluctantly paid for the flowers in advance, with a cashier’s check for $27,435. She accused the florist of a "bait and switch" scheme, and asked for more than $400,000 in damages for, among other things, "unjust enrichment" by the florist. In a litany of "distressing and embarrassing" offenses, the lawsuit says the florist substituted cheaper orchids than promised in the bridal bouquet and provided the equivalent of $5 roses from a street vendor, but charged $55 to $65.       October 16, 2007; The New York Times

LIVINGSTON NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

The ex-husband wanted to terminate his alimony payments, claiming that the ex-wife could now maintain the marital standard of living on the income she now earned, constituting changed circumstances. However, the New Jersey divorce judge pointed out the ex-wife had a right to permanent alimony since she was the dependent spouse and had been out of the workplace for most of the marriage. The parties enjoyed a marital lifestyle between middle and upper middle class, and her current lifestyle was not equivalent to the marital lifestyle. The argument that her current employment as a nurse constituted "changed circumstances" was properly rejected by the trial judge because at the time of the New Jersey judgment of divorce, both parties anticipated such re-employment and the martial life style could not be maintained on the nursing salary alone, without alimony.    March v. Goldberg, New Jersey App. Div., October 11, 2007

LITTLE FALLS NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER TAX LIABILITIES

The wife was not eligible for the benefits of  "Innocent Spouse" treatment under Internal Revenue Code Section 6015.  Thus, the tax penalties, interest and  liabilities in question were not solely attributable to the husband. The wife was deemed to have had actual knowledge of the understatements of income. This was because she was college-educated, she had access to the parties' joint bank accounts, she balanced the parties' checkbook, she admitted to her status as a member of the parties' Limited Liability Partnership, and she failed to satisfy her duty to make diligent inquiry.     Golden et ux., v Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-299,  October 8, 2007

CLIFTON NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The ex-wife sued the ex-husband for custody of their child. Then the brother of the ex-wife certified he was willing to care for the child, and the New Jersey divorce judge granted temporary custody to the brother, who was thereafter order to pay the $94, 800 fee for the court-appointed guardian ad litem. On appeal, the appellant asserted he should not have been ordered to pay the fee for the guardian ad litem because he was not a party. While the appeal was pending, the guardian ad litem informed the New Jersey Appellate Division her entire fee had been paid by the ex-wife, which rendered the order moot.     Morris v. Morris, New Jersey App. Div., October 4, 2007

MORRISTOWN NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The ex-wife tried to vacate the 1998 New Jersey judgment of divorce. Before the judgment was entered, and after negotiations had taken place, she apparently told her attorney she objected to the divorce; and when her attorney sent her the final consent judgment prepared by the other lawyer, she never responded to his letter asking her if he should sign it on her behalf. The motion to vacate was brought 8 years later and was properly denied because of failure to provide meritorious reasons for the lengthy delay. The application was denied due to laches and estoppel.    Long v. Long, New Jersey App. Div. October 3, 2007

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION CHILD CUSTODY

Britney Spears has lost custody of her kids. A Los Angeles judge yesterday ordered the pop star to turn over "physical custody" of her sons, 2-year-old Sean Preston and 1-year-old Jayden James, to their rapper-wannabe dad, Kevin Federline. The children were to be given to their father by noon tomorrow and remain with him "until further order of the court," according to the latest ruling in the divorced couple's custody battle. But one source said the drop-off of the kids to K-Fed had already been made by yesterday afternoon.    New York Post, October 2, 2007