New Jersey Family Law

CHATHAM MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

This New Jersey matrimonial matter is now between the father and his daughter. The daughter is emancipated and the administratrix of her mother's estate. The mother was shot to death in 2007 while waiting to pick up the daughter. The father is in jail and awaiting trial. This is the 5th time the Appellate Division has issued an opinion in this matter; it has also been litigated in  federal court.    Galtieri v. Galtieri et al, New Jersey App. Div., February 24, 2009

SHORT HILLS ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce judge was "unimpressed" with the wife's expert's testimony regarding the alleged valuation of the ex-husband's accounting practice. Accordingly, that expert's opinion was disregarded, and this finding is affirmed on appeal.     Cacici v. Cacici, New Jersey App. Div., February 23, 2009

TENAFLY BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MARITAL HOME MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce judge ruled that the ex-wife could buy out her ex-husband's interest in the former marital home based on its value in 1996 when the parties divorced, rather than at its value in 2003 when he demanded the sale of the home. However, because her proofs were inadequate, the decision is reversed and the 2003 valuation must control for purposes of any buy-out.      Pacifico v. Pacifico, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2009

JERSEY CITY HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE EXPERT WITNESS LAWYER

"We are of the view that to interpret New Jersey Rule of Evidence 615 to authorize the routine sequestration of expert witnesses in a matter such as this is contrary to the terms of New Jersey Rule of Evidence 703, which provides that an expert may base his opinion upon 'facts or data . . . perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.'  By its use of the preposition 'at,' the rule clearly envisions an expert observing trial proceedings and then commenting upon what he has heard."    State of New Jersey v. Popovich, February 19, 2009

WESTWOOD BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER CHILD CUSTODY INTERVIEW

  "The daughter presented as a sensible and normal teenager, who was getting very good grades in school, had a part-time job, and had friends, including a boyfriend. The judge noted that the daughter was old enough to intelligently express her views regarding custody and visitation, and he accepted her statements that she wished to continue living with her father and that he was not maligning [the mother] or doing anything to prevent the daughter form visiting [the mother]...We summarily reject [the mother's] contention that the judge abused his discretion in conducting an in camera interview of the daughter and relying on her statements. The interview was authorized, see Rule 5:8-6, and the manner in which the judge conducted the interview was evenhanded and appropriate in all respects. The judge's assessment of the daughter's demeanor and credibility is entitled to our deference."     Olsher v. Gold, New Jersey App. Div., February 18, 2009

LIVINGSTON ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER ACCOUNTING MEDIATION

"In short, it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions based on defendant's submissions, without a detailed report from an accountant explaining the earnings and losses of the business and what income as well as other financial benefits defendant obtained from the business....According to defendant, the balance sheets attached to his certification were prepared by an accountant, yet he did not provide a certification from an accountant attesting to those balance sheets."     Chapoorian v. Chapoorian, New Jersey App. Div., February 17, 2009

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY MEDIATOR

New Jersey Legislation is pending to deny alimony to those who kill or plot to kill their spouses and eliminate the right of abusive and neglectful parents to inherit from their children. The measure would bar equitable distribution in a New Jersey divorce to a party convicted of killing or conspiring to kill their spouse. In addition, anyone convicted of murder, manslaughter, criminal homicide or aggravated assault that killed or seriously injured a family member would not be allowed to receive alimony. The bill defines a family member broadly to encompass not just the immediate family but also cousins, grandparents, aunts and uncles, including those related by marriage or adoption.   New Jersey Assembly Bill A-2681, February 13, 2009

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION LAWYER

"Wilfredo Cordero was a professional baseball player. He played with the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, Montreal Expos, Florida Marlins and Washington Nationals in the major league for fourteen years. He made a substantial amount of money during his career. In some seasons he made as much as $6,000,000. Cordero's last season as a major league baseball player was 2005, when he played for the Washington Nationals. He participated in Spring training with the New York Mets minor league camp in 2007, but was cut. He has not played baseball since that time."    Cordero v. Mora, New Jersey App. Div., February 12, 2009

SUMMIT UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CUSTODY VISITATION LAWYER

The father sought an order that would increase his parenting time to 50 percent, direct a best interest/custody evaluation pursuant to Rule 5:8-1 and find the mother in contempt of court and in violation of litigant's rights because she refused to attend sessions with the parenting coordinator and had interfered with his parenting time.   Rimmer v. Loesch, New Jersey App. Div., February 11, 2009

HOBOKEN HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY PALIMONY ATTORNEY

50 Cent, aka Curtis James Jackson, sought dismissal of his ex-girlfriend's claims. She claimed half of his multimillion-dollar estate and future income, arguing he orally promised to "take care of her for the rest of her life." He argued the alleged oral agreement violated the Statute of Frauds. The court agreed and found the purported agreement was made when the parties lived together as lovers. While his statements demonstrated loving devotion, they also undermined her breach of contract claim. The court ruled the services for which she sought compensation arose out of the nature of the relationship, and ordinarily would be exchanged without expectation of payment. Also, the oral agreement was unenforceable as lacking in specifics, and violated the Statute of Frauds. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.  Tomkins v. Jackson, Supreme Court, New York County, February 10, 2009