New Jersey Family Law

ROSELAND NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY COUNSEL FEES

This New Jersey divorce case involved a 26 year marriage. The husband appealed from the New Jersey judgment of divorce that granted alimony and denied counsel fees. The ex-wife suffered from Lupus, had sustained two strokes, and was determined to be disabled by the United States Social Security Administration. Accordingly, the court held that no income should be imputed to her. Plaintiff bore the burden of overcoming the presumption of defendant's disability and he failed to do so. Defendant had no means to pay a counsel fee award . In any event, applying the appropriate factors, each party should pay his or her own attorney fees.     Reader, Jr. v. Reader, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2008

SECAUCUS NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The daughter admitted to misappropriating $400, 000 from her mother while managing her affairs. This was properly held to be a non-dischargeable debt of the mother's Estate, pursuant to Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. There is no issue of material fact as to that section's requirement of defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. Moreover, the daughter's prior statements in her answer to the adversary complaint – that she was her mother's fiduciary, and admitting to the defalcation – constitute a judicial admission and is binding on her throughout the litigation. Further, she failed to provide any support against the finding of defalcation. Finally, even if she had failed to admit she was her mother's fiduciary, or denied she committed the defalcation, the court would still have reached the same conclusions.   In Re Wolke, Debtor; Buttimore, etc. v. Wolke, U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., February 22, 2008

MAHWAH NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY

The mother's estate was successful in obtaining a jury verdict against the son. This judgment arose from his default on a stock purchase agreement, entered into with his retiring parents in 1990, to purchase shares of the family business, and the subsequent suit to enforce the obligation. The court affirms (1) the summary judgment ruling, holding the stock purchase agreement enforceable; (2) the trial court's ruling excluding hearsay evidence; (3) a variety of other rulings made during the trial; and (4) the trial court's award of pre-judgment interest on the jury verdict.     Izzo, etc. v. Izzo, et al.; Kreizman, etc. v. Izzo, New Jersey App. Div., February 21, 2008

VERONA NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The father is an accountant in Clifton and out on $2.5 million bail for attempting to murder his matrimonial attorney. Meanwhile, he sought to vacate his child support obligations, contending his ability to earn a living is impaired as a result of the negative publicity from his indictment. The New Jersey divorce judge properly denied the application, based on a mental health expert's conclusions that he harbored ill will towards the mother, disparaged her in front of his sons, and posed a risk of flight.      Lucarella v. Lucarella, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2008 .

TENAFLY NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY FAMILY MEDIATION

This is a dispute among the widow of the decedent, her mother-in-law, and the decedent's adult children, about where to bury the decedent. The widow wanted to bury her husband in a plot the two had purchased 10 years before his death; the children, two of whom were executors, voted to bury their father in the plot where they said he had verbally expressed he wished to be buried. The trial judge found for defendants, but the appellate court reverses, concluding that the adult children violated the Cemetery Act by burying the decedent in a plot owned by their paternal grandmother, depriving the widow of the right to determine the disposition of the remains of her husband of 27 years. The trial judge, in fact, found that the statute was violated. However, she analyzed the widow's request to disinter and relocate the body to her plot under N.J.S.A. 45:27-23 without consideration of the potential impact of N.J.S.A. 45:27-22. Even if the defendants were totally credible (which she found they were not), the decedent's orally-expressed preference does not outweigh all of the other factors that strongly favor disinterment. Under the proper balancing analysis, the widow clearly established good cause.  Marino v. Marino, Jr., et al., New Jersey App. Div., February 19, 2008

 

SPRINGFIELD NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge in charge of the case, Karen Cassidy, says there's no need for new custody experts in the divorce of New Jersey's former governor. Jim McGreevey asked to have his 6-year-old evaluated in his bid for shared custody. The judge, however, said such an evaluation is unnecessary and would delay the divorce trial, scheduled to start in May. McGreevey's estranged wife, Dina Matos, objected to any new experts being brought into the case so close to trial. She and her attorney left the court room without commenting. McGreevey says he is disappointed at the ruling, and will continue to seek equal joint custody of his daughter.      The Associated Press, February 15, 2008

PARSIPPANY NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY ALIMONY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judgment required the ex-husband to  pay $500 per week in permanent alimony. On appeal, this decision is affirmed. The New Jersey divorce judge did not err in applying the ex-wife's "projected standard of living" when calculating her need, nor in considering the impact of equitable distribution and her full earning capacity. Moreover, the alimony award was fully justified based on his own earning capacity before the marriage and his earning capacity established during the marriage. The alimony award was "fully justified" in light of these considerations and the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b).      Majkrzak v.  Majkrzak, New Jersey App. Div., February 13, 2008

PISCATAWAY NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION

The grandparents sought a change of custody away from the mother.  When their application was denied, they sought temporary relief , but since there was no basis to conclude that the New Jersey divorce judge misapplied the law , it was correct to deny further intervention. This included the refusal (1) to appoint a guardian, (2) to compel additional evaluations, (3) to disclose files from the Division of Youth and Family Services, or (4) to interview the children , based on the DYFS investigation and the opinions of the experts who had evaluated and examined the children.         M.N. v. M.N., New Jersey App. Div., February 11, 2008

FLORHAM PARK NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION COLLEGE EXPENSES

The father was seeking reconsideration of an order that required him to (1) reimburse the mother for college expenses she incurred for the parties' son; (2) provide proof of medical insurance coverage on his son; (3) reimburse her for his son's uninsured medical expenses; and (4) pay a portion of her counsel fees. But the New Jersey divorce judge made the decision on the papers, without oral argument. The case is remanded, especially since the judge never addressed the request for a credit based on nearly $40,000 he paid in child support when his son was in school.    Hopson v. Hopson, New Jersey App. Div., February 8, 2008

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY ALIMONY RETIREMENT

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in denying the ex-husband's motion to terminate his permanent alimony obligation after his voluntary retirement at age 59. The alimony payments are needed by the ex-wife in order to maintain her marital standard of living.  She earns approximately half of what he earns, she has recurring health problems due to childhood polio and she cannot access her own full pension benefits until she is 66. To compel her to lose the alimony benefit negotiated just recently and depend solely on her equitable distribution share of his retirement income would be unfair. The ex-husband's early retirement was foreseeable. He failed to address it in the New Jersey divorce negotiation and she should not suffer from that omission.     Quigley v. Quigley, New Jersey App. Div., February 7, 2008