New Jersey Family Law

BUTLER MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY MEDIATION

Because it is interlocutory, this appeal is dismissed. The trial court’s order did not finally resolve all of the issues raised. Rather, it merely deferred determination of those issues until after a 60-day period of additional consultation with a Parenting Coordinator regarding parenting time with their child. The matter is remanded to the New Jersey divorce judge for further proceedings.    Kalra v. Prasad, New Jersey App. Div., April 23, 2008

MORRISTOWN NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

On appeal, the ex-wife complained about various aspects of the New Jersey divorce judgment, including (1) the amount of alimony awarded; (2) equitable distribution of the home and its contents; (3) distribution of the 401(k); and (4) debt. Her contention that there were various "mistakes" is rejected. The New Jersey divorce judge's rulings on all issues are supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence, and are therefore affirmed.   Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, New Jersey App. Div., November 21, 2007

WAYNE NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER ALIMONY

Does the ex-husband have the "the realistic ability" to earn the $170,000 in imputed annual earnings "in 2007 and in the foreseeable future" ? The case is remanded for further proofs in a plenary hearing to determine this issue. It was error for the New Jersey divorce judge to deny the application because there were genuine and material issues of fact that required "an evidentiary re-evaluation of the parties' financial circumstances." Although the ex-husband had "severely failed to give appropriate priority and attention to his support obligations," denial of the application on the papers was incorrect.    Hawley v. Levine, New Jersey App. Div., November 7, 2007

WHIPPANY NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

After discussing the timeliness of and procedural deficiencies in the ex-wife's appeals, the court affirms the New Jersey divorce judge's dismissal of her claims. Many of the issues raised could have been raised during the New Jersey divorce trial, such as the ex-husband's alleged failure to pay bills pendente lite, unpaid pendente lite support, entitlement to distribution of retirement assets that appellant admitted her attorney forgot to address, an unsubstantiated claim that her husband had been hiding and transferring assets and an alleged former agreement that she could have the marital home.    Javiya v. Javia, New Jersey App. Div., October 29, 2007

ESSEX FELLS NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge entered an order that retroactively increased the ex-husband's child support obligation, required him to contribute to the cost of a car for his son, and directed him to provide an accounting of the liquidated marital stock options to be placed into a joint bank account. Since the order in question and the record below indicate that the payments in the order are "subject to proofs and accounting," no final decision has been made. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.      Stinga v. Stinga, New Jersey App. Div., October 17, 2007

CHATHAM NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION DISCOVERY EVIDENCE LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct (a) in deciding that the ex-husband breached the parties' New Jersey divorce agreement and (b) in denying his application for relief because his requests had already been previously decided in a 2002 trial. Moreover, several of the prior rulings had already been appealed and reviewed. Although the ex-husband now claims that his ex-wife suppressed evidence at trial, his request for relief is clearly time-barred and relief is not available without exceptional and compelling circumstances which are not present.      Jones v. Jones, New Jersey App. Div., September 24, 2007

SUMMIT NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY CHILD SUPPORT

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in his calculation of child support; in not requiring the father to obtain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation; in allocating expert accounting fees; in the valuation of the parties’ van; and in the award of counsel fees to the ex-wife. However, the trial judge erred: (1) by failing to equitably distribute the proceeds of the sale of the marital home; and (2) in failing to consider a $62,000 loan plaintiff made to defendant.    Bradford v. Gregorio, New Jersey App. Div., July 17, 2007

HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER APPEALS

The ex-husband claimed the New Jersey divorce judge erred by (1) failing to give him an opportunity to develop his case by not ensuring he received information requested during discovery and pre-trial conferences; (2) failing to equitably distribute the marital assets, precluding him from participating in the discussion of his pension and erring his valuing the marital home; and (3) failing to consider the best interests of the parties' son. These contentions are rejected and the decision is affirmed. Bailey v. Bailey, New Jersey App. Div. June 20, 2007

NEW JERSEY FAMILY LAW : MARITAL LIFESTYLE

A new Rule of Court impacts parties in a New Jersey divorce action. Using one of the 4 options provided in the Rule, parties must address the marital standard of living either by (1) including a declaration that the marital standard of living is satisfied by the agreement or settlement; or (2) stipulating the definition of the marital standard of living; or (3) preserving copies of their respective filed Family Case Information Statements until such time as alimony is terminated; or (4) any party who has not filed a Family Case Information Statement shall prepare Part D ("Monthly Expenses") of the Family Case Information Statement form serving a copy thereof on the other party and preserving that completed Part D until such time as alimony is terminated. New Jersey Rules of Court, Rule 5:5-2(f); October 2, 2006

www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r5-5.htm

 

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT

The Governor of New Jersey has selected Justice James R. Zazzali to succeed Deborah T. Poritz as Chief Justice and also named Appellate Division Judge Helen E. Hoens as an Associate Justice. Both seem assured of eventual confirmation by the New Jersey Senate. On October 26, 2006, Poritz reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70.    New Jersey Lawyer, September 18, 1006