New Jersey Family Law

HOBOKEN JERSEY CITY BAYONNE SECAUCUS HUDSON COUNTY NJ FAMILY GIFTING MEDIATION

The burden of proving a gift is on the party asserting the claim. Generally, the recipient must show by "clear, cogent and persuasive" evidence that the donor intended to make a gift.  When, however, the transfer is from a parent to a child, the initial burden of proof on the party claiming a gift is slight.  In such cases a presumption arises that the transfer is a gift. . . The rationale is that a child is considered a natural object of the bounty of the donor.  Once a child proves by this "slight" burden that a gift was made, the donor has a heavy burden, that of clear and convincing evidence, to prove that the gift was conditional.        Campbell v. Raff & Masone,  P.A. et al., New Jersey App. Div., April 16, 2015

SUMMIT CLARK CRANFORD LINDEN UNION COUNTY NJ DIVORCE GIFTING MEDIATOR ARBITRATOR LITIGATION LAWYER

In New Jersey, one seeking to rebut the presumption that a transfer of property from a parent to a child is a gift must show clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent. Such evidence must be antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or immediately following the transfer.      Bhagat v. Bhagat, N.J. (2014); New Jersey Supreme Court, February 3, 2014; 2011 WL 1529857, 2011 WL 1529857

EDGEWATER CLIFFSIDE PARK MAHWAH OAKLAND BERGEN COUNTY NJ CHILD GIFTS MEDIATOR LAWYER

 
Under the New Jersey Uniform Transfers to Minors Act [N.J.S.A. 46:38A-1 et seq.], a qualifying custodial gift to a minor is irrevocable and has to be turned over to her/him at age 21. It must be maintained separate from all other property and cannot be used to defray a financially able parent's child support obligations.      Ferraro v. Ferraro, New Jersey App. Div., August 12, 2011

UNION COUNTY NJ DIVORCE ATTORNEY

"[The husband's] testimony at trial contradicted [the wife's] account of the conversation with [the grandmother]. He testified that plaintiff and he "borrow[ed]" the money for the house from his father. [The father] lent him and [the wife] the funds to buy the house, just as he had for their first home. [The husband] denied that the debt on the mortgage would be deducted from his inheritance and claimed that the only advantage [the grandmother], acting for [the father] , gave to the couple was a "cheaper interest rate" (five per cent) than they could have obtained otherwise." Horn v. Horn et al., New Jersey App. Div., May 5, 2010

HACKENSACK FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY

"The parties in this case were not married, did not believe themselves to be married, acknowledged that they had no intention of marrying, and were not cohabiting. The cases defendant cites do not stand for the proposition that, as between two people in such a dating relationship, there is a presumption that payments made by one to, or on behalf of, the other are gifts."       Tillett v. Elefante, New Jersey App. Div., May 4, 2010

SOUTH ORANGE MAPLEWOOD ESSEX FELLS ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The father transferred $10 million to his daughter. But was that transfer a loan or a gift? In this litigation between the father and the Estate of his deceased daughter, the trial judge concludes that the transfer was, in fact, a loan and must therefore be repaid, with interest.   Estate of Cohen v. Robert v. Cohen, New Jersey Ch. Div., April 29, 2010

MURRAY HILL UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY MATRIMONIAL MEDIATION LAWYER

This holiday season, give the gift that says, "I really hate your spouse!" Get your divorce gift voucher from U.K. law firm Lloyd Platt & Company. It entitles the bearer to an advice session with a divorce lawyer and starts at £125 [about $200 US].      The Telegraph, December 18, 2009

HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

Boyfriend's gifts to girlfriend during their engagement, including vacations, money for a vehicle, and a vasectomy, did not carry an implied condition of marriage. These were not conditional gifts because (a) he failed to establish his intent was to condition the gifts on a marriage taking place between them; (b) the purposes of the gifts were not frustrated when the marriage did not occur; and (c) the nature of the gifts did not establish they were conditional. Hess v. Johnston, Utah Court of Appeals, July 23, 2007;  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/hess062107.pdf

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE DISCOVERY

New Jersey divorce cases often require expert testimony from accountants, appraisers, mental health professionals and others. Before testifying, such experts must submit written reports summarizing their opinion, failing which they are barred from appearing at trial or, worst case, having the claim dismissed. That's what happened here, where plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. Rule 4:17-7 precludes consideration of the plaintiff's "updated" report, since it was not accompanied by a certification that the information was not reasonably available earlier through the exercise of due diligence. Plaintiff's case was fatally defective without the updated report. Plaintiff also violated Rule 4:24-1(c) by failing to file a motion to re-open discovery. The unexplained omissions do not qualify for equitable relief in the form of rule relaxation.  Chapadia v. Campbell, et al., New Jersey App. Div., August 21, 2006

Family Feud

Mom entered into a private annuity with her son. She gave him $1,000,000 and he agreed to pay her $159,081 per year for the rest of her life. Plaintiff, defendant’s sister, worried that he would receive an excessive sum if Mom died unexpectedly, which she did less than 4 months later. Meanwhile, the son had made written representations that he would transfer a portion to them, if Mom died, consistent with her Will. But after Mom died, he reneged and claimed that his agreement was unenforceable. On appeal, the Court affirms the jury finding of a binding agreement and rejects the son's contention that the agreement was void. Conley v. Binder, New Jersey App. Div., April 15, 2005