New Jersey Family Law

MORRISTOWN DIVORCE MEDIATION

The deceased ex-husband should have maintained the life insurance policy on his life, called for under the parties' New Jersey judgment of divorce. Therefore, the ex-wife's motion for a $300,000 judgment against the defendant (the Estate of the late husband) for failure to provide the insurance was properly granted, for benefit of the parties’ unemancipated daughter, even though the Estate had a pending coverage suit against the insurer.  Weiss, etc. v. Estate of Robinson, Deceased, New Jersey App. Div., January 11, 2007

MORRIS COUNTY CONTESTED PROBATE

Dismissal of the plaintiff neighbor's complaint after a trial affirmed in an action that arose from the decedent's alleged promise to sell his home to her for $70,000; the neighbor, who was about 30 years younger than the decedent, asserted she would not have helped him as much as she did if he had not made the promise; the home was sold to a third party for $88,764. The neighbor did not establishe by clear and convincing evidence that there was an oral contract to convey or hold the home for her benefit.   Giannini v. Estate of Perri, New Jersey App. Div., January 2, 2007

ENGLEWOOD DIVORCE LAWYER

The decedent's daughter had no interest in real property which was titled in the name of decedent and his second wife at the time of his death. The property belonged to the second wife at the time of the New Jersey marriage, and was later deeded into the names of the married couple. In light of N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.3, because the deed did not contain any manifestation of an intent to create a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy, a tenancy by the entirety was created. Thus, the trial court correctly rejected the argument that the transfer did not establish a tenancy by the entirety merely because the deed did not include the words "husband and wife."    I/M/O Estate of Brown, Deceased, New Jersey App. Div., December 19, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION: INHERITANCE EXPECTANCY

Should an inheritance expectancy be considered for equitable distribution or alimony or child support purposes in a pending New Jersey divorce?  HYPO : spouse A is the sole legatee of Grandpa Testator, who is 109 years old, in terminal condition and on life support, with an estate of $50,000,000, all of which is left to spouse A under the terms of a valid and binding Last Will and Testament. "Where the beneficiary remains on generally good terms with the donor, and particularly where the donor is a parent or other close family member, it is a rare case where the expected gift or inheritance will completely fail to yield any benefits at all. The better position, therefore is that the court may consider an expected gift or inheritance as one relevant factor in dividing the marital estate. Of course, the weight of a future gift or inheritance as a division factor should depend heavily upon the degree of likelihood that benefits will actually be received."   Krize v. Krize, Alaska Supreme Court, September 29, 2006

http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/apub0825.exe

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

Did the New Jersey decedent intend to include surviving spouses - but not surviving New Jersey divorced spouses - as eligible beneficiaries of his trust? The grantor was the son of the founder of Johnson & Johnson; in an earlier decision, the Appellate Division held that the term "spouse" in the trust instrument was ambiguous on its face and had remanded to determine the grantor's probable intent. On remand, the scrivener of the trust instrument testified that the grantor had intended to included surviving spouses but not New Jersey divorced spouses. The Chancery Division accepted that testimony and its decision is now affirmed.  In Re Trust Created by Agreement dated December 20, 1961, New Jersey App. Div. August 22, 2006

NEW JERSEY MATRIMONIAL ATTORNEY

After his death, the decedent's attorney filed a stipulation of dismissal of the New Jersey divorce complaint. The executrix, who had an extramarital relationship with the decedent for almost 30 years, was the sole beneficiary of his will. The wife's guardian ad litem filed a claim for the wife's elective share and to overturn the will, and the executrix filed a motion to reinstate the divorce complaint. The New Jersey divorce court properly concluded that the decedent's death terminated the New Jersey divorce proceeding because a New Jersey divorce judgment could no longer could be entered.    Estate of Spadacini v. Spadacini, New Jersey App. Div., August 18, 2006

NEW JERSEY FAMILY LAWYER

The father of a disabled woman who died last year is entitled to half her estate even though he had little contact with her during her life, a state judge ruled yesterday. Ruben Martinez will receive about $400,000 of the $1.1 million remaining for the care of his daughter, Jennifer Rogiers, born with severe disabilities. The girl's mother, Rosa Rogiers, also received $400,000 and an additional $300,000 to compensate her for the years of care she provided. The money comes from a 1989 malpractice settlement. Jennifer Rogiers died at the age of 22. In granting Martinez the money, New Jersey Judge Olivieri dismissed claims by Rogiers that her former boyfriend -- the couple never married -- should get nothing because he was not involved in his daughter's upbringing and paid no child support.    Newark Star Ledger, July 28, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER : PROBATE LITIGATION

The decedent's first marriage was ended by a New York divorce judgment. He then moved to New Jersey, remarried and made out a will naming his second wife as his beneficiary and executrix. The trial court threw out the first wife's attempt to obtain an elective share of his estate and rejected her claim that she was still legally married to him. The Appellate Division affirms.    In Re Estate of Formoso, New Jersey App. Div., May 19, 2006

NEW JERSEY FAMILY LAWYER : ESTATE LITIGATION

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that one-time stripper and Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith could pursue her late husband's oil fortune. "The court also held that a State's vesting of exclusive jurisdiction over probate matters in a special court strips federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain any probate related matter..."    Marshall v. Marshall, May 1, 2006 ;

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1544.pdf