New Jersey Family Law

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge issued rulings as to custody of the parties' son, parenting time, child support and counsel fees. In addition, the court imposed a $500 sanction against the father's possible future violation of the Orders in question. This was reversible error because such a sanction was premature and therefore arbitrary or punitive. If there are actual violations, then entry of sanctions might be appropriate at such time.       Sheinbaum v. Campbell, New Jersey App. Div., August 28, 2009

HOBOKEN HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ALIMONY ARREARS MEDIATION

The ex-husband repeatedly failed to make his alimony payments. So the ex-wife was compelled to make numerous applications for enforcement. She sought not only collection of the alimony arrears but also counsel fees and interest. Finally, he made good on the arrears with a lump of $144,000. But neither counsel fees nor interest were properly awarded to the ex-wife and the New Jersey trial judge erred in those two respects. Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for appropriate corrections on these two issues.  Scheps fka Papparazzo v. Papparazzo, July 22, 2009

 

EDGEWATER BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

The ex-husband appealed from the order of the New Jersey divorce judge, who struck his responsive pleading and entered default against him. As a result, the ex-husband was limited to trial cross-examination of the ex-wife as to equitable distribution. This sanction was based on defendant's pattern of obstreperous conduct, culminating in his failure to appear at a court-ordered case management. The judge's decisions are affirmed on appeal.   Randazzo v. Randazzo, New Jersey App. Div., July 14, 2009

JERSEY CITY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY MEDIATOR SANCTIONS

After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the ex-husband was ordered to pay various amounts for alimony, child support and equitable distribution. He then filed several post-judgment actions in state and federal court. The latest is this 385-paragraph complaint, in which he claims the various defendants allegedly conspired to deprive him of his "constitutional rights". Not only was the case dismissed, but the federal judge finds this lawsuit so clearly frivolous and brought in such bad faith that sanctions are must be assessed against the ex-husband. Haddad v. Flynn, U.S. Dist. Ct, District of New Jersey, September 18, 2008

 

MONTCLAIR NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE

The Early Settlement Panel judge abused his discretion in sanctioning defense counsel for his failure to appear at the ESP proceeding, finding his excuse – that he was stuck for hours in major traffic due to flooding – inadequate. Counsel had called the courthouse on several occasions to advise of his predicament, and ultimately was told he was released by a law clerk. He did not separately call plaintiff's counsel, because he assumed the law clerk would advise her. The trial judge failed to properly follow the procedures governing a contempt citation. Defense counsel's behavior was not contumacious and the imposition of any sanction was a mistaken exercise of discretion.      Cimmino v. Cimmino, New Jersey App. Div., February 28, 2008

HACKENSACK DIVORCE LITIGATION

The New Jersey divorce court (1) allowed the ex-wife to amend her pleadings to assert claims for fraud, punitive damages, sanctions, and attorney’s fees based on the ex-husband's failure to disclose his ownership interest in the marital home, (2) awarded her $19,700 in sanctions based on his failure to pay court-ordered support and attorney’s fees, (3) ordered his business and its assets seized and sold, and (4) ordered him arrested and jailed if he does not "bring his support obligations current within a reasonable period of time."  All these rulings are affirmed.      Grasso v. Grasso, New Jersey App. Div., October 11, 2006

Deposition No Show

In a New Jersey divorce action, the court has the discretion to impose various sanctions when one party refuses to comply with legitimate pretrial discovery requests. Here, the defendant did not appear for her deposition and the plaintiff moved to strike her answer and suppress her defenses. Instead, the court imposes a less drastic remedy and orders that defendant’s testimony will be barred at the time of trial. Dafejimue v. Jones, New Jersey Law Div., January 25, 2005.