New Jersey Family Law

SHORT HILLS NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY MODIFICATION ATTORNEY

This was the 18th post-judgment motion filed since the parties' 2002 New Jersey divorce. Here, the ex-husband sought to reduce alimony obligation and to adjust the parties' percentage shares of their two minor children's unreimbursed medical expenses. The alimony was set at 7 years of limited duration, to expire next year. Moreover, the father's income has only slightly fallen since the original award, and the mother's has only slightly increased; the father still earns almost double the salary of the mother. This did not represent a sufficient change of circumstances to justify relief. Nor is there any reason to alter the 55%-45% split as to the children's unreimbursed medical expenses, which remains substantially equitable. Finally, the award of counsel fees to the mother is not unreasonable under the circumstances.     La Venuta, etc. v. La Venuta, New Jersey App. Div., February 4, 2008

LIVINGSTON NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY VISITATION MEDIATION LAWYER

The trial judge's various parenting/visitation decisions are reversed. It was error to suspend the father's parenting time indefinitely and require him to attend therapy without a plenary hearing. Therefore, the matter is remanded for such a hearing at which both parties shall have the right to present all relevant evidence, both lay and expert, bearing upon the issue of defendant's relationship with his children. Although the judge found that defendant was putting pressure on his children in bad-mouthing his ex-wife, his rights should not be denied unless it is determined clearly and convincingly that this is one of those exceptional cases where visitation would cause physical or emotional harm to the children, or unless defendant were determined to be unfit.       Chantzis v. Chantzis, New Jersey App. Div., February 2, 2008

MOUNTAIN LAKES NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY ALIMONY LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in denying the ex-husband's 2007 motion seeking to terminate his permanent alimony obligation to his former wife, and for reimbursement of past alimony paid to her. Although the 61-year-old indicated that his health had deteriorated, the judge had already found in 2005, on a similar motion, that, while his disability had changed, his financial ability to pay had not. The motion for reconsideration was denied as untimely, and he filed again in 2007 for the same relief. The appeal is dismissed, because there was a failure to prove that the current motion was demonstrably different from the 2005 motion. Absent proofs, this was nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the denial of his untimely reconsideration motion.           Colello v. Colello, New Jersey App. Div., February 1, 2008