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

CLIFTON PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY VISITATION MEDIATION

A change in a child’s age is a change in circumstance that alone can warrant a change in court-ordered visitation. However, a plenary hearing should generally be ordered if the terms of visitation are disputed and a hearing would assist the court in resolving the issues presented. Nevertheless, there is no absolute right to a plenary hearing.       Swicinski v. Maul, New Jersey App. Div., April 21, 2008

ESSEX FELLS ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY ALIMONY LAWYER

Where a well-educated, capable litigant has refused to find suitable employment to meet his child support obligations, income should be imputed to him in accordance with his ability to earn income consistent with his education and skills. Voluntary underemployment should be disregarded in calculating support and arrearages. However, in calculating arrears, the court should take into account a lump sum payment apparently made by him to avoid incarceration.    KhatKhat v. Hussein, New Jersey App. Div., April 18, 2008

ALLENDALE BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

The mother moved to vacate a child support order, entered without notice to her, in which the court reduced the father's support obligation. She was attending nursing school full time, could only briefly work a part-time job because of taking care of the parties' 4 children, and was only able to afford a one-bedroom apartment for herself and the children. In denying the motion to vacate, the trial court simply stated that it was untimely. But under New Jersey Rule 4:50-1, the motion should have been granted since no prejudice was claimed or shown by the ten-month delay in bringing the motion and there was no proof of service of the summary action.    Odionu v. Enekebe, New Jersey App. Div., April 16, 2008

GUTTENBERG HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

How long was the New Jersey divorce opinion? 110 pages. No wonder that the Appellate Division had no difficulty in affirming. The parties contested virtually everything -- including custody of the 5 youngest of their 7 children, child support, alimony, equitable distribution, counsel fees and whether plaintiff would be permitted to relocate to New York. The trial judge's findings were detailed because of the likelihood "this case [would] have a long exposure in the courts well after [his] decision [was] rendered." The decision provided background information on the marriage, the procedural history of the case, and defendant's abuse of alcohol, and thoroughly analyzed each of the disputed issues.   Haddad v. Haddad, New Jersey App. Div., April 14, 2008

UNION TOWNSHIP UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the father moved to lower his child support, due to his reduced finances. The mother opposed the motion, in part based on the anti-Lepis clause in their New Jersey divorce agreement. The court holds that the clause in question is still fair, there were no unforeseen or extreme circumstances and therefore modification was not in order. In fact, the application was denied without either an exchange of financial information or a plenary hearing. Finally, the mother had agreed to accept a lower support amount, specifically in consideration.    Sullivan, etc. v. Sullivan, New Jersey App. Div. April 11, 2008

CRESSKILL BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE BANKRUPTCY MEDIATION

In their New Jersey divorce agreement, the parties agreed that he would pay her $36,500, which was characterized in the orders as "child support," but actually represented credit card balances. She had to pay these in full, after he filed a bankruptcy petition. The court rejects his contention that, because she was listed in his bankruptcy petition as a creditor, he should be relieved from any obligation to reimburse her.      Molinari v. Molinari, New Jersey App. Div., April 10, 2008

WEST CALDWELL ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE COLLEGE EXPENSES LAWYER

This is an appeal from the New Jersey divorce judge's order concerning the parents' obligations to pay for their daughter's college expenses. The original order required the parents to share equally the children's college costs, which was generated by their daughter's decision to attend an out-of-state private school, instead of a college in New Jersey. The father is a high school graduate who had worked as a machinist and now claims his financial position had deteriorated since the divorce. The mother asserts that the father is voluntarily under-employed. Further, she contends that, with financial aid, the tuition at the private school would be reduced to less than the New Jersey colleges. The judge kept the 50-50 ratio in place, but capped the father's liability at $10,000 per year, and the appellate panel affirms, finding plaintiff's arguments on appeal to be without merit.    Morales v. Morales, New Jersey App. Div., April 9, 2008

RINGWOOD PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

Why did the New Jersey divorce judge fix the ex-husband's income at $200,000 per year? The court reverses the denial of his post-divorce motion to modify alimony and child support and remands for more detailed findings of fact, including a hearing if necessary, to determine actual income, the value of perquisites and benefits and whether defendant is underemployed in his present position.     Casole v. Casole, New Jersey App. Div., April 8, 2008

CONVENT STATION NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge entered a restraining order against defendant, finding his communications to plaintiff – via online and text messages -- constituted harassment. But this finding is reversed : (1) the judge failed to find any of his actions were done with the required purpose to harass plaintiff; and (2) his conduct, in any event, cannot be considered an act of domestic violence. At the hearing, plaintiff did not testify defendant ever threatened her, or she was alarmed about her safety. While defendant's communications – basically saying he was her only real friend – were unwanted, they were not made in a threatening manner, or at inconvenient hours. Once the judge learned that defendant was represented by counsel (who was not present at the hearing), she should have provided him the opportunity to adjourn the trial and consult with his attorney.      Segura v. Vacca, New Jersey App. Div., April 7, 2008