New Jersey Family Law

CALDWELL ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ALIMONY MEDIATION LUMP SUM LAWYER

In their 2005 New Jersey divorce agreement, they agreed to a lump-sum buy-out of his obligation to pay her alimony. The amount was paid. Then, she remarried in 2006. Was he entitled to reimbursement of any portion of the amount he paid her?      Green v. Green, New Jersey App. Div., December 18, 2009

BERKELEY HEIGHTS UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY ALIMONY DIVORCE MEDIATOR LAWYER

The ex-husband appeals from the denial of his motion to terminate alimony. But the facts presented do not justify this relief. The ex-wife's increased income is still less than the alimony. Further, the failure to impute additional income to her was not error, because she is only working part-time.    Donet v. Donet, New Jersey App. Div. November 11, 2009

TENAFLY BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ALIMONY MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the ex-husband's motion to reduce alimony and the ex-wife's cross-motion for counsel fees. But the judge did not properly consider the facts of the case, particularly the uncontroverted claim that his income was substantially and involuntarily reduced for the 3 years that led up to the applications. The case is remanded for a plenary hearing on both issues. Miele v. Miele, New Jersey App. Div., November 3, 2009

CRESSKILL BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION LAWYER MEDIATION

"This case involves the interpretation of a September 1, 1998 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.9a which has never before been addressed in a published opinion...Applying the 1998 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.9a and Rule 5:6B to the case at hand, defendant's request for a modification of child support based upon the passage of three years since the time of the entry of current child support order will not be considered."   Martin v. Martin, ___ N.J. Super.___ (Law Div. 2009); New Jersey Law Div., August 4, 2009

JERSEY CITY HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

They obtained their New Jersey divorce judgment in 1992. Thereafter, the ex-husband moved to terminate alimony and an order to that effect was entered in 2007. Although the ex-wife claimed she was never served with the underlying motion papers, the New Jersey divorce judge denied her application to set aside this order. Moreover, the court's file in the matter was lost and could not be located. Based on the foregoing and the lack of the requisite Case Information Statements, the judge is reversed and the order terminating alimony is vacated. Federow n/k/a Nekrasov, New Jersey App. Div., August 3, 2009

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

This case corroborates the well-established proposition that the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines do not apply, once children reach the age of 18. The father was seeking to reduce his child support for his 18 year old son, who is attending college. The New Jersey divorce judge denied the application without a plenary hearing and without oral argument. This was reversible error.   Nesmith v. Nesmith, New Jersey App. Div., July 20, 2009

RIDGEWOOD DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION ALIMONY BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY COHABITATION

The ex-husband moved for the termination of alimony based on the ex-wife's cohabitation with an unrelated male. Furthermore, the ex-wife was pregnant by that male. Nevertheless, the New Jersey divorce judge rejected the motion to terminate alimony. This was prejudicial error and is reversed on appeal. On remand, there is to be a downward modification of alimony.    Duarte v. Duarte, New Jersey App. Div., July 10, 2009

MORRISTOWN DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATOR MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY

  Their New Jersey divorce agreement provided that alimony would terminate if she cohabited. After their New Jersey divorce, the ex-husband claimed that the ex-wife was not only cohabiting, but she was doing it with her divorce attorney. She denied it. On July 18, the New Jersey divorce judge believed her and denied the ex-husband's motion to terminate his alimony payments. But 6 days later, on July 24, the ex-wife announced she was moving into her friend's house and thereby conceded that her alimony payments were to end.   Mayer v. Mayer, New Jersey App. Div., June 18, 2009

 

SECAUCUS HUDSON COUNTY MATRIMONIAL LAWYER DIVORCE MEDIATION

The ex-husband was entitled to an automatic reduction of his alimony due to loss of income. This was because of the precise language of the New Jersey divorce agreement. The New Jersey divorce judge's decision is reversed and remanded for a hearing to determine the amount of the reduction.     Jain v. Jain, New Jersey App. Div., June 16, 2009

RINGWOOD PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

In a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 39 % of the nation's top divorce attorneys cite an increase in modifications being made to child support payments since the economic downturn began. Additionally, 42 % of the members report a rise in the number of changes made to alimony payments. While getting a judge to reduce child support payments because of a change in employment status was once quite difficult, today's brutal economy is making judges think again. Getting laid off — or switching to a lower-paying job — was once considered by the courts a temporary setback; it was assumed that the employee could find a comparable job soon enough, with as good a salary. These days, however, all bets are off. "The definition of 'temporary' is different now than it was," says New Jersey divorce Judge Michael Diamond.     New Jersey Bergen Record, May 6, 2009