|
Manalapan, NJ Family Law & Divorce Law Blog
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
In a Decision – M.T. v. D.T.
Read more . . .
Thursday, November 10, 2016
In a Decision – Maurer v. Maurer (an "Unreported Decision") >> The Question Presented: Subsequent to the divorce hearing, his counsel realized the need for an adjustment for taxes regarding the value of the parties' retirement accounts.. The Appellate Division found that rejected plaintiff’s argument that enforcement of the MSA would cause an unjust and inequitable result. The Appellate Division further determined that the alleged oversight regarding these tax consequences did not render the MSA unfair or unenforceable.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
In a Decision – P.S. v J.S. - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Trial Court heard arguments on the question as to whether there was an obligation contribute a limited sum of additional funds, above and beyond basic guideline-level child support, to help defray the costs of their teenage daughter’s acting-related expenses and other extracurricular activities.
Read more . . .
Monday, November 7, 2016
In a Decision – A.M.C. v. P.
Read more . . .
Thursday, November 3, 2016
In a Decision – Maurer v Maurer - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Court declined to Vacate a Divorce Judgment and Marital Settlement Agreement where, after the fact, a litigant expressed a tax consequence to a distribution of retirement funds which was not equalized. The failure to calculate the after-tax value of the pensions was of no consequence. The parties negotiated an integrated agreement, and we will not now disturb it because plaintiff asserts a change in terms would be more fair. The parties were married in 1989. The parties attempted to negotiate a settlement agreement from May through November 2014.
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 27, 2016
In a Decision – Mullen v. Lentile - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Trial Court heard arguments on the Order to Show Cause without conducting an evidential hearing and allowed Plaintiff's attorney to place allegations of wrongful conduct on the record in an ex parte fashion without first attempting to call defendant and allow Defendant to participate. The Appellate Division found that the judge placed undue emphasis upon defendant s demeanor during the hearing as a factor for the issuance of an FRO. The utilization of this as a factor both ignores and is at odds with a court proceeding that, by any objective measure, is laden with emotion. Defendant s stake in the outcome of the proceeding included the potential issuance of an FRO and the risk of loss of parenting time with his child.
Read more . . .
Monday, October 10, 2016
In a Decision – M.D.G. v. J.
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 6, 2016
In a Decision – Macek v Peisch - (an "Unreported Decision") >> Defendant-father had filed malpractice actions against the two prior attorneys appointed to represent him in support enforcement hearings, and that he had requested that the third be removed because the attorney, against whom father had threatened to file a grievance, allegedly had not done the things that father thought were reasonable to do. The Family Division judge found that father was aware, pursuant to Administrative Directive #2-14 (Apr. 14, 2014), that if for "whatever reason [counsel] cannot be appointed, incarceration is not an available remedy." The judge noted that "with every attorney we have appointed for [father, he] . .
Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
In a Decision – LBvHB - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division ordered a Hearing. At the time of the Divorce the Marital Agreement was prepared by the other spouse’s lawyer, the party was not represented by a lawyer, the party was suffering from maladies and substance dependence. The party waived alimony provided for $1.00 in child support without reference to Child Support Guidelines, provided for limited equitable distribution and gave up physical custody. The party did not know of the other spouse’s significant income.
Read more . . .
Thursday, September 22, 2016
In a Decision – LBvHB - (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Appellate Division ordered a Hearing. At the time of the Divorce the Marital Agreement was prepared by the other spouse’s lawyer, the party was not represented by a lawyer, the party was suffering from maladies and substance dependence. The party waived alimony provided for $1.00 in child support without reference to Child Support Guidelines, provided for limited equitable distribution and gave up physical custody. The party did not know of the other spouse’s significant income.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
In a Decision – DC v BC (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held: The Trial Court, as a Decision of first impression, set forth that a knowing violation of a temporary restraining order meets the first prong of a two-pronged test. Two or more separate acts, even if each independently insufficient to meet the two-prong Silver test for entry of a restraining order, may in the aggregate satisfy Silver and constitute a sufficient basis for entry of a restraining order. The right of a plaintiff to seek a final restraining order, based upon a defendant's knowing violation of a temporary restraining order, exists independently of whether defendant’s violation is, or can be, the subject of separate contempt proceedings in an action for violating a restraining order under the court's “FO” docket, pursuant to N.J.S.
Read more . . .
|
|
|
|