Not only was the New Jersey divorce judge reversed for failing to provide adequate explanations for her rulings, but on remand, the case must be heard by a different judge.Ducey v. Ducey, New Jersey App. Div., February 24, 2012
What happens to his support payments when a divorced Major League professional baseball player turns 40, gets cut from his team and his salary is reduced from $2 million per year to $59,000 per year? Villone, Jr. v. Villone, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2012
The ex-husband was entitled to a hearing on his contention that the parties' agreement was procured through coercion and duress on the part of the ex-wife, who was herself an attorney and represented by counsel, whereas he was unrepresented and made various claims regarding his mental incompetency. C.L.H. v. C.B., New Jersey App. Div., February 17, 2012
The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in finding that the ex-husband experienced a substantial downward change in his financial circumstances. Moreover, this change was permanent, as opposed to temporary. Thus, the reduction in support payments is affirmed.Weiss v. Weiss, New Jersey App. Div., February 16, 2012
The doctrine of contra proferentum might apply in this case, after a full review of the circumstances under which the New Jersey divorce agreement was negotiated, with particular emphasis on whether unequal bargaining power existed.Maoz v. Maoz, New Jersey App. Div., February 15, 2012
Among the legal criteria underlying divorced New Jersey parents' obligations to contribute to college expenses for a child of the marriage, the most important is financial ability to pay. Sciacca v. Hagarty, New Jersey App. Div., February 9, 2012