New Jersey Family Law

ROSELAND NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE ALIMONY COUNSEL FEES

This New Jersey divorce case involved a 26 year marriage. The husband appealed from the New Jersey judgment of divorce that granted alimony and denied counsel fees. The ex-wife suffered from Lupus, had sustained two strokes, and was determined to be disabled by the United States Social Security Administration. Accordingly, the court held that no income should be imputed to her. Plaintiff bore the burden of overcoming the presumption of defendant's disability and he failed to do so. Defendant had no means to pay a counsel fee award . In any event, applying the appropriate factors, each party should pay his or her own attorney fees.     Reader, Jr. v. Reader, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2008

EMERSON NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER ATTORNEY FEES

Some New Jersey divorce Judges compel the parties to exchange pretrial written settlement offers under seal. If the case doesn't settle, the Judge then looks at these proposals after the fact, to determine which party was "unreasonable" and assesses counsel fees accordingly. The Appellate Division has just ruled this practice is improper and constitutes reversible error : "A remand is also required to correct legal error. It was not proper to consider settlement proposals in fixing counsel fees...There is no authority to award or enhance a fee because one party's settlement offer is "fairly reasonable" and the other's offer is "decidedly less so."       Dounis v. Dounis et al., New Jersey App. Div., January 25, 2008

SADDLEBROOK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

In this case addressing financial issues arising from a custody dispute between the child's father and the maternal grandparents of the child, who were awarded custody, the court reverses the orders: (1) reinstating a prior $20,000 award of counsel fees to the plaintiffs because plaintiffs did not submit an adequate affidavit of services; and (2) the order requiring defendant to pay plaintiffs' counsel fees for the appellate proceedings, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for the appeal.         Conahan, et vir. v. Klingenberg, New Jersey App. Div., January 2, 2008

WEST PATTERSON NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE COUNSEL FEES LAWYER

The appellate court reverses the New Jersey judgment of divorce which required the ex-husband to pay his ex-wife's counsel fees of $13,430. Though the New Jersey divorce judge discussed bad faith, he made no findings as to the parties' financial circumstances, their ability to pay their own fees or contribute to the fees of the other, or the extent of the fees incurred or any fees previously awarded. Given the size of the award, the failure of the court to engage in a complete analysis of the New Jersey Rule 5:3-5(c) factors requires that the award be vacated and remanded for further proceedings.      Goodheart v. Acharya, New Jersey App. Div., December 4, 2007

ENGLEWOOD NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge ordered the father to pay $30,040 in counsel fees to the mother. There was "absolutely no objective evidence" supporting his claim that the judge was biased. Moreover, the father failed to prove that a change of custody was in the sons' best interests. This was fully supported by the record and consistent with the controlling legal principles, as was the decision to award attorney's fees to the mother pursuant to New Jersey Rule 5:3-5(c).     Miller v. Miller, New Jersey App. Div., October 25, 2007

SUMMIT DIVORCE MEDIATOR

After a 12 day trial, the New Jersey divorce judge justifiably rejected his contention that he was a psychological parent to her two children, and therefore entitled to court-ordered visitation. He failed to prove that he had lived with the children in the same household, or had performed parental functions to a significant degree. The judge also correctly her awarded $68,485 in counsel fees.   Vitale v. Goodman, New Jersey App. Div., April 3, 2007

DEMAREST DIVORCE LAWYER

The wife's former attorney in an underlying divorce action moved to enforce a charging lien her equitable distribution award. The wife argued her attorney's efforts on her behalf did not create any new funds in the form of equitable distribution to which a charging lien could attach. She alleged the settlement awarded her equitable distribution equal only to the value of real property she already had legal title to. The attorney calculated that the $1.6 million settlement exceeded her share of the actual real estate proceeds by at least $300,000. The court found such calculation reasonable, stating the excess amount represented the creation of a new fund by the attorney's efforts to which a charging lien may attach. Thus, it granted the motion to enforce a charging lien in the amount of nearly $170,000. Zelman v. Zelman, New York County, February 12, 2007

EDGEWATER DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey divorce judge was wrong in granting the ex-wife $36,774 in counsel and expert fees in this multi-state custody action. Although the judge appropriately considered each of the required factors, he ultimately based his decision on a belief that (1) the ex-husband chose to litigate in New Jersey (where he lived) rather than Iowa (where the ex-wife and their child lived) in bad faith; and (2) his financial situation permitted him to pay his counsel fees and to contribute to her fees, while she was unable to pay any portion of the costs she incurred. The appellate court notes that the basis for the judge’s first conclusion was incorrect as a matter of law, and the second was reached on conflicting affidavits without an appropriate evaluation of credibility.      Del Preore v. Remmers, New Jersey App. Div., February 5, 2007

MILLBURN DIVORCE MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in awarding attorney fees to the successful mother in connection with the parties’ competing motions regarding the school district in which their son should be enrolled. Although there was no finding that the father acted in bad faith, the court did find that his income was roughly three times hers, and justifiably ordered him to pay half of her counsel fee, which the court also determined was reasonable.    Gordy v. Gordy, New Jersey App. Div., February 1, 2007

UNION COUNTY FAMILY LAW

This New Jersey family law dispute involved the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and appropriate placement for plaintiff's son, a student eligible for special education under IDEA. While plaintiff did not prove Newgrange, an out-of-district school, was an appropriate placement, neither did defendant prove the Cranford Alternative Middle School was an appropriate placement. The court denied plaintiff's application for counsel fees and granted defendant's. Since neither party received the relief it sought below, neither party obtained a "judicially-sanctioned change in the legal relationship", neither party prevailed and neither is entitled to fees.  R.G., etc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Education, U.S. Dist. Ct. September 15, 2006