New Jersey Family Law

SCOTCH PLAINS UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

They never married, but they cohabited for 24 years. After their relationship ended, the issue was whether he had any interest in the property they lived in together. Distinguishing Mitchell v. Oksienik [which involved an unmarried couple who engaged in a joint venture to purchase their residence where they lived as a "married" couple] the New Jersey divorce judge found there was no evidence of a partnership between the parties, who did not conduct themselves as if they were married. They had separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, owned separate vehicles and procured separate insurance. For many of the years of the relationship, he admitted he had little or no income. Finally, the property was purchased solely by her, with funds she acquired from selling her own prior property and he did not make any significant mortgage or repair payments.    Ristine v. Fleming, New Jersey App. Div., March 26, 2008

FORT LEE NEW JERSEY DATING RELATIONSHIP MEDIATION

A final New Jersey restraining order was justly entered against defendant, with the court's jurisdiction being based on the conceded dating relationship that the parties once had. The history between the parties -- including specific events established in the evidence -- was not the basis of the FRO, but rather was used by the court to develop an understanding of the parties' personal relationship so that an appropriate evaluation of the allegations of the complaint could be made.  

CRESSKILL DIVORCE MEDIATOR

After the parties’ dating relationship foundered, he sued her for reimbursement of $80,000 he allegedly loaned her over the course of their relationship. She counterclaimed for certain jewelry. During the trial, she played an audiotape with a composite of a series of 16 messages he left on her telephone over a 3-day period. The appellate panel affirms the judgment dismissing his complaint and awarding her damages on her counterclaim, rejecting his assertions of error as to the admission of the audiotape. He never objected to the tape at trial, and took the stand and testified in rebuttal after it was played, never disputing its authenticity.     Colombino v. Vaccaro, et al., New Jersey App. Div., March 8, 2007

MORRISTOWN COHABITATION

The New Jersey divorce judge justifiably awarded plaintiff an amount representing damage caused to her house by defendant, her former live-in paramour, but properly denied the remainder of her claim asserting that defendant verbally agreed to pay her $200 per week toward their joint living expenses for the time they cohabited. While the judge indicated he found plaintiff and her witness credible, he concluded that defendant's oral expression at some point that he would contribute toward the expenses did not necessarily create the type of debt that was enforceable after the relationship had ended. Ruffini v. Forgione, New Jersey App. Div., January 4, 2007

MORRIS COUNTY MATRIMONIAL LAWYER

Her complaint for damages against her former boyfriend was properly dismissed. Although she claimed promissory estoppel and breach of his alleged oral agreement to divorce his wife, plaintiff failed to establish damages. Also, her claim was precluded by waiver, repudiation, abandonment and impossibility, because it was plaintiff herself who ultimately terminated the relationship, thereby preventing defendant from fulfilling his promises. Plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case and failed to prove that defendant made definite promises to her when she supposedly changed careers and moved to Florida, allegedly to be with him. Redeker v. Lutz, New Jersey App. Div., November 27, 2006

NEW JERSEY PALIMONY

Plaintiff failed to establish cohabitation to support her palimony claim where, during a 10-year relationship, the decedent chose to live alone in several residences while the plaintiff and the child of the relationship lived nearby in a separate residence that the decedent owned, even though the plaintiff and the decedent spent time together at the residences and traveled together on occasion. Clear and convincing proof of the plaintiff's claim was required under the Dead Man's Statute [N.J.S.A. 2A:81-2].    McDonald v. Estate of Mavety, ___N.J.___ (App. Div. 2006); New Jersey App. Div., February 22, 2006

NEW JERSEY PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT : DIAMOND MAY NOT BE FOREVER

Mario Mele is suing ex-fiancée Janet Grace for $35,000 as reimbursement for a diamond engagement ring. Grace, who designed the ring and refused to return it, sold the 2.5-carat stone and put cubic zirconia in the setting. She contends the ring wasn’t a gift at all, since it came with the stipulation that she not own any other diamond ring. She donated 5 of her own rings to charity and gave one to a niece — about $20,000 worth in all. In response to the diamond dilemma, a state legislator is drafting a bill that would require a jeweler's "Miranda warning" : the Court has ruled an engagement ring is a conditional gift. Although a diamond may be perfect, the legislation is flawed: if the one buying the ring is the one warned, how’s the one getting the ring supposed to know?     New Jersey Law Journal, February 14, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : GIFT OR LOAN?

Plaintiff sued defendant for $55,000 that she allegedly lent him during their romantic relationship. However, the monies were gifts and not loans, where the married plaintiff gave defendant various amounts during their relationship, and only demanded repayment when she ended their relationship after learning he also had a relationship with another woman and had not terminated it, as he promised. In light of the ex-girlfriend’s expectations and the parties’ relationship , the trial court also properly found no basis for unjust enrichment.   Lang v. Deng, New Jersey App. Div., January 13, 2006

NEW JERSEY PALIMONY

Summary judgment for the plaintiff condominium owner in a Law Division action to eject the defendant ex-girlfriend and denial of her request to transfer the matter to the Family Part, where her palimony action was pending, affirmed. The parties had a long-term romantic relationship. He was her boss and was married to someone else, but had "essentially supported" her since 1983 and had repeatedly promised her that he would get divorced, marry her, and father her child. On the "narrow question" presented, the Law Division correctly concluded that there was not "a scintilla of evidence" that he promised her the condominium. In affirming, the Court discusses Kozlowski, Crowe and Roccamonte, disagreeing that there were sufficient promises to constitute an enforceable contract. The trial court correctly noted that these cases deal with cohabitation and promises of support, not promises of an interest in real estate.   L'Esperance, Jr. v. Devaney, New Jersey App. Div., November 23, 2005

New Jersey Broken Engagement

This New Jersey couple was engaged to be married and living together. When they broke up, he claimed there was a verbal agreement to share their expenses. She refused to pay her share of the bills and he sued for breach of contract. The trial court found that he failed to prove the existence of an enforceable agreement. This ruling is affirmed on appeal. The moral of the story : get it in writing. Can you say "prenuptial"?    Jodha v. Bailey, New Jersey App.Div., August 31, 2005