New Jersey Family Law

VERONA NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The father is an accountant in Clifton and out on $2.5 million bail for attempting to murder his matrimonial attorney. Meanwhile, he sought to vacate his child support obligations, contending his ability to earn a living is impaired as a result of the negative publicity from his indictment. The New Jersey divorce judge properly denied the application, based on a mental health expert's conclusions that he harbored ill will towards the mother, disparaged her in front of his sons, and posed a risk of flight.      Lucarella v. Lucarella, New Jersey App. Div., February 20, 2008 .

SUMMIT NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION

As federal regulators pursue insider trading cases, the SEC has filed 7 cases against married couples so far in 2007, including one involving the sale of Dow Jones to the News Corporation. There was only one similar case in all of 2006. In some cases, like the one filed July 24 against Shane Suman and Monie Rahman, regulators have accused the couple of working together to execute the trades. In others, like one filed in May against a former employee of Oracle, one spouse is accused of misappropriating confidential information from the other and using it to make a quick profit in the market. "You can never be absolutely certain what happened between the husband and wife, whether it was a momentary lapse or a calculated conspiracy."       The New York Times, August 14, 2007

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER : BATTERED WOMEN SYNDROME

In a prosecution for the murder of defendant's girlfriend, the trial court properly admitted expert testimony about the common characteristics of battered women and battered women's syndrome. The failure to issue a limiting instruction on the use of the expert's testimony was harmless error. Also, the 20-year delay between the date of the crime and the date of the indictment did not violate due process.    State v. Townsend, New Jersey Supreme Ct., ___ N.J.___ (2006); May 5, 2006

NEW JERSEY FAMILY MEDIATION : MEGAN'S LAW

The juvenile defendant was delinquent under an offense requiring registration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 [Megan's Law]. The judge imposed a special condition of disclosure requiring him to disclose his status as a Megan's Law offender to the parents of any girl he dates. This special condition was consistent with the Code of Juvenile Justice, did not violate the limited disclosure provision of the Code and did not usurp the Megan's Law tier classification system. State in the Interest of D.A., New Jersey App. Div., ___ N.J.___ (App. Div. 2006); May 4, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER: RICO

Defendant sought to plead a cause of action for an alleged violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO). The claim was that plaintiff supposedly participated with the third-party defendant New Jersey attorney to defraud his ex-wife of equitable distribution by giving plaintiff title to his properties. The court denies the motion, finding that the essential elements of a RICO claim are not present. Mere complaints about misconduct related to a matrimonial action trivialize the statute; they do not violate it. "In its haste to accuse plaintiff and the third-party defendant of unfathomable evils, defendant has failed to recognize the statutory purpose [of RICO] and improperly confused wrongful conduct with conduct that subverts enterprises through racketeering."     Wade v. Rinkleur & Assocs., Inc. v. Baldinger, New Jersey Law Div., Hunterdon Cty., April 3, 2006

NEW JERSEY SEARCH & SEIZURE : SPOUSAL CONSENT

The estranged wife gave police permission to search the marital home for items of drug use after the husband, who was also present, had unequivocally refused to give consent. He was indicted for possession of cocaine. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence as products of a warrantless search unauthorized by consent. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. In affirming, the Georgia Supreme Court held that consent given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another physically present occupant, and distinguished United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 , which recognized the validity of entry made with the consent of one co-occupant in the other's absence. HELD: under these circumstances, the husband's stated objection renders the search unreasonable and invalid as to him.  Georgia v. Randolph, United States Supreme Court, ___U.S.___ (2006); March 27, 2006

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1067.ZS.html