New Jersey Family Law

HACKENSACK BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ARBITRATION LAWYER

In their New Jersey divorce agreement, the parties agreed upon arbitration to resolve certain financial disputes. This was "overwhelmingly" proven. Accordingly, the New Jersey divorce judge's decision to the contrary is reversed and the parties are directed to proceed with the agreed-upon arbitration process.     Leff v. Leff, New Jersey App. Div., March 23, 2009

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY MEDIATION

The father was supposed to pay child support of $1446 per month. Instead, he negotiated a deal with his disability insurance company to pay him a lump sum of $360,00. He then spent this amount on a condominium and on a business that failed. When he subsequently moved to terminate his child support obligation, the New Jersey divorce judge denied the application and was affirmed on appeal. The unilateral decision to cash in $3000 per month payments for a lump sum amount did not constitute a change of circumstance warranting relief.    Riggs v. Ciarrocchi, New Jersey App. Div., March 19, 2009

VERONA ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ALIMONY MEDIATION ATTORNEY

This was a marriage of 7.5 years . At the time of the 2005 New Jersey divorce, Martin Brodeur was 33 and his wife, Melanie, was 31. They had four children. After a trial in Essex County, Judge Convery awarded $500,000 per year in permanent alimony, based on Brodeur's income of more than $5 million per year. The Appellate Division reversed the award of permanent alimony and remanded on the issue of duration. On remand, the mother argued for 2024, when the youngest child would graduate from college. The father argued for 2012, when his contract would expire. Judge Convery determined that the alimony duration should be until 2020, when the youngest child graduates from high school. However, the amount of alimony was unchanged. "We also reiterate that the issue of the term and amount of the limited duration alimony are separate issues...'[N]othing precludes a motion to reduce the amount of alimony once defendant retires and his postretirement employment and income is known.'.. In addition, defendant's concern that the limited duration alimony award may be seen as 'masqueraded' child support is unfounded. The judgment of divorce and the opinions of the trial court and this court clearly demonstrate that the alimony and child support awards are wholly separate. Affirmed."     Melanie A. Dubois a/k/a Melanie A. Brodeur v. Martin P. Brodeur, New Jersey App. Div. March 10, 2009

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce trial lasted more than 5 months. The Family Part decision took more than 10 months more. The appeal was not argued until more than 16 months later. The New Jersey Appellate Division opinion was not issued until more than 6 months later. If the pre-trial period was only one year, this case lasted more than 4 years.    Marchev v. Marchev, March 9, 2009

SADDLE RIVER BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATOR

A marital settlement agreement incorporated into a New Jersey divorce decree does not necessarily prevent a subsequent arbitration claim by a claimant against the ex-spouse's employer, a brokerage firm.  Sweeney v. Sweeney, March 6, 2009

 

MONTCLAIR ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey divorce judge erred by declining to consider the claim of a verbal agreement between the parties, pertaining to their jointly owned dog. It was error to disregard the claimed agreement, merely on the basis that a pet is personal property. Agreements about jointly held property are material in actions concerning its division. They may be specifically enforced. Thus, the case is remanded for further proceedings on the existence of an oral agreement about ownership and possession of the dog and the propriety of specific performance.  Houseman v. Dare,      N.J. Super.   (App. Div. 2009); New Jersey App. Div., March 5, 2009

 

FORT LEE BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATOR

At the 2007 New Jersey trial, in an effort to prove that the mother was abusing the child, the father presented the child's psychologist. Unbeknownst to the mother, the psychologist began treating the child in 2004. But the psychologist admitted he never spoke to the mother about the child or the abuse allegations. Neither the psychologist nor the father confronted the mother about the alleged abuse, reported it to any third-party or took steps to stop it. The New Jersey divorce judge properly found both the father and the psychologist not credible. Thus, the father failed to prove (a) the mother's unfitness or (b) jeopardy to the child's welfare. Change of custody was correctly denied.      Caccire v. Caccire, New Jersey App. Div., March 4, 2009

HOBOKEN HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce agreement was not silent as to the post-judgment mortgage pay downs. In fact, the agreement addresses both the party who was to pay the mortgages during the period in question, and the distribution of the sale proceeds for each home. If the ex-husband had wanted to recoup the post-judgment mortgage payments, he could have provided as much in the agreement. Instead, after significant negotiations, the parties agreed that only he would pay the mortgages for an undetermined length of time, and that each party would receive half the proceeds. That agreement is what the court enforced.   Tinfow v. Tinfow, New Jersey App. Div., March 3, 2009

HACKENSACK BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE HEARSAY MEDIATION

 In this New Jersey family law case, the 3 documents purportedly showing an increase in defendant's income are inadmissible hearsay. They are not verified by affidavit or certification made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge. The appending of those documents to the motion papers without such supporting affidavits or certifications does not constitute compliance with New Jersey law. Further, counsel's statements in motion briefs that are neither of record, judicially noticeable, nor stipulated do not constitute cognizable facts.     Zhao v. Zhang, New Jersey App. Div., March 2, 2009